^^ 


:Hf® 


PERKINS  LIBRARY 

Duke  University 


I^re  Books 


THE 

BAPTISM  OF  BELIEVERS  ONLY, 

AKD  THE 

Particular  Communion 

OP 

THE  BAPTIST  CHURCHES, 

EXPLAINED  AND  VINDICATED. 
IN  THREE  PARTS. 

THE  FIRST—PuBLisHED  or;g:nally  in  1789; 
THE  SECOND— In  7794; 

THE  THIRD — As  AppendiX)  containing  Additional 
Observations  and  ARGUMENTg,  with  Strictures  on 

SEVERAL   late   PUBLICATIONS. 


BY  THOMAS  BALDWIN, 
PART    HI. 

Bofton  : 

Printed  and  fold  by  Manning  IS  Lorj«C>  No.  2,  ComhilL 

1806. 


District  of  Mjssachusettsj  to  wit: 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  That  on  the  tenth  day  of  September,  \n 
the  thirty-iirft  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  Stales  of 
America,  M.\  v  k  i  n  f;  &  Lo  k  i  no,  of  the  fiiid  difiricl,  have  dcpof. 
ited  in  th/s  ofRco  the  title  of  a  Book,  the  rif^ht  \vheie:of  ihcy  clai^i  as 
Proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  to  zuit : — *'  The  Baptifni  oi  Bi'* 
lievers  only,  and  the  Particular  Communion  of  the  Baptiil  Chuiches, 
explained  and  vindicated.  In  Three  Parts.  The  firfl— -pubhftjed  ori- 
ginally in  17S9;  the  fecond — in  1794;  the  third--an  Appendix,  con- 
taining Adfljfional  Obfcrvations  and  Arguments,  with  Siriflures  on 
fevcra!  late  Puhiicarions.     By  Thoma.s  Baldwin." 

In  conformity  to  th''  A6\.  of  the  Congvdfs  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled, ''  An  A6i  for  the  encournf^ernent  of  learning,  by  fecuring  the 
copies  of  majis,  charts,  and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proj^rietors  of 
fuch  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  ;'\  and  alfo  to  an  Aft, 
entitled,  "  An  Aft  fupplemcntary  to  an  Aft,  entitled,  '  An  Aft  fot 
the  cnconrngenient  of  learning,  by  fecurlng  the  copies  of  maps,  charts, 
and  books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  fuch  copies,  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned  ;'  and  extcndi^ig  the  benehts  thereof  to  the 
arts  of  deiigning,  engraving,  and  etching  hiftorical  and  other  prints." 
'     WILLIAM  S.  SHAW,  Cicrk  0/ (Ac  Dijlria  of  MajJackufrUs. 


Cj"  This  Appendix  was  publiflied  in  connexion  with^ 

two  other  Pieces  on  the  fame  fubjcft  ;  but  as  the  obfervations  and 
arguments  contained  in  It  have  no  particular  leference  to  the  former 
Pieces,  it  was  thought  beft  to  pubhfli  it  alfo  in  a  fcparate  pamphlet. 


1 


y  JL 


A  P    P  E  N  D  I  X. 


SECTION     I. 


I 


T  is  with  a  mixture  of  regret  and  plealure,  that 
the  Autlior  of  the  enfuing  work  again  refumes  his  pen 
in  this  unplcafant  controverfy.  To  be  obliged  to  oppofe 
the  fentiments  and  pra<Stice  of  a  body  of  Chriftians,  fo 
refpeiStable  for  their  number,  learning,  and  piety,  and 
for  many  of  whom  he  entertains  cordial  fentiments  of 
fr-endfhip  and  Chriftian  afFeOion,  is  matter  of  no  fmall 
regret.  But  he  feels  a  degree  of  pleafure  in  believing, 
that  he  is  not  influenced  by  an  improper  partiality  for 
a  particular  fedl,  but  with  a  laudable  zeal  for  the  honour 
of  Chrift,  as  Lawgiver  and  King  in  Zion. 

The  fubjecl  oi particular  communiGn^  has  at  length  be- 
come the  moft  important  article  of  difpute,  beiween 
the  Baptifts  and  P^edobaptifts.  The  latter  urge  their 
objeflions  with  much  addrefs,  and  feem  determined  if 
we  will  not  give  up  this  part  of  our  practice,  to  have  no 
religious  connexion  with  us  whatever. 

We  have  attempted,  in  a  very  plain,  undlfguifed  man- 
ner, to  aflign  the  true  reafons  of  our  conduct.  Thefe 
have  been  either  overlooked,  or  deemed  unfatisfa^tory. 
They  on  the  other  hand  have  laboured  to  convince  us, 
that  the  whole  of  our  prad^ice  wherein  we  differ  from 
them,  is  unfcriptural,  and  oppofed  to  the  true  fpirit  of 
the  gofpel.  "We  have,  with  all  the  candour  we  could 
command,  endeavoured  critically  to  examine  and  weigh 
their  arguments,  but  have  not  been  able  to  fee  their 
conclufivenefs.     Of  courfe  we  remain  unconvinced. 


C    *    ] 

It  is  a  h{i  well  known,  that  the  Baptift  churches 
from  time  immemorial,  have  in  general  held  and  prac- 
tifed,  what  is  called  c/cfe  or  particular  communion.  That 
is,  they  have  refufed  to  communicate  at  the  Lord^'s 
table  with  thofe  whom  they  deemed  nnbaptized.  When 
they  were  few  in  number,  and  univerfally  defpifed,  this 
was  little  complained  of.  It  was  fometimes  jail:  men- 
tioned in  the  clofe  of  a  long  catalogue  of  errors  iji  this 
way,  "  And  befide  all  this,  they  refufe '  to  commune, 
with  us." 

We  wifh  not  to  attribute  the  unufual  and  increafing 
oppolition  that  is  made  to  our  fentiraents  in  this  particular, 
to  unworthy  motives  ;  but  we  are  at  a  lofs  in  fome  in- 
ftances  how  to  account  for  it,  on  the  principles  of  Clirif- 
tian  fincerity.  Can  we  fuppofe,  that  thofe  who  unceaf- 
ingly  fcandalize  our  pra^ice,  and  endeavour  to  repre- 
fent  our  fentiments  in  the  moft  unfavourable  light,  af  e 
fincerely  defirous  of  communicating  with  us  at  the 
Lord's  table  1  We  certainly  cannot,  unlefs  we  fuppofe 
them  as  inconfiftent  as  they  repreferit  us.  For  what 
purpofe  then,  it  may  be  afked,  is  this  hue  and'  cry  fet  up 
about  clofe  communion  }  It  is  believed  by  many,  that 
the  true  anfwer  would  be,  becaufe  it  is  known  to  be  the 
moft  popular  objection  which  can  be  urged  againft  our 
fentiments.  Immerlion  has  cohfefTedly  fo  many  advan- 
tages over  fprinkling,  and  the  baptifm  of  a  believing 
adult  to  that  of  an  unconfcious  infant  j  that  little  head 
could  be  made  againft  a  praflice  which  hasfo  much  th« 
appearance  of  being  apoftolic,  were  it  not  for  its  con- 
nexion with  the  "  antlchriftian"  fcheme  of  clofe  com- 
munion. 

Our  Pfcdobaptift  brethren  know  as  well  as  we,  that 
our  particular  communion  is  a  natural  confequcnce  of 
our  fentiments  refpecting  baptifm.  It  is  feen  at  once, 
tiiat  the  former  is  directly  connecled  with  the  latter  ; 
yea,  that  it  arifes  out  of  it.  But  inftead  of  approving 
of  it  upon  this  ground,  they  infer,  that  our  view^s  of 
baptifm  muft  be  wrong,  or  they  would  not  produce  fuch 
unpleafant  confequences.  We  are  fatisfied  that  there 
is  fault  fomewhere.  Either  they  are  to  blame  for  re- 
jeEling  the  courijel  of  God  in  not  being  baptized'  agreeably  to 


C     5     ] 

the  inflitutlon  ;  or  we  are,  for  not  acknowledging  them 
to  be  baptized  when  we  verily  believe  they  arc  not. 

We  think,  however,  we  cannot  be  confifiently  blamed, 
for  refufmg  to  communicate  at  the  Lord's  table  with 
fbch  as  we  deem  unbaptized,  efpecially  by  fuch  as  them- 
felves  hold  baptifm  to  be  a  pre-requilite  for  that  ordi- 
nance. This  we  confider  to  be  precifely  the  ground 
on  which  our  Psedobaptifl  brethren  ftand.  Wc  know 
of  none  who  are  elleemed  found  in  dodtrine,  and  or- 
derly in  practice,  who  do  not  agree  with  us,  in  refuling 
to  communnicate  with  any  perfons  however  pious  and 
amiable,  until  they  are  baptized. 

There  are  Tome  indeed,  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  in 
the  eafieft  way  poflible,  who  tell  us,  (but  who  never  re- 
duce their  fentiments  to  pra6^ice)  they  could  commune 
withthofe  who  had  never  been  baptized  in  any  way, 
provided  they  had  fufficient  evidence  of  their  piety. 
But  we  conclude  the  Piedobaptifts  in  general,  would 
join  with  us,  in  reje<5ling  a  fentiment  fo  fubverii\e  of 
gofpel  order,  and  fay  with  the  apoftle,  "  We  have  no 
fuch  cuftom,  neither  the  churches  of  God." 

If  thefe  obfervations  be  juft,  they  will  bring  us  to  the 
true  ground  of  the  controverfy  ;  which  is,  not  whether 
we  ought  to  communicate  with  unbaptized  perfons, 
but  whether  we  ought  not  to  believe  that  to  be  gofpel 
baptifm  which  is  adminiftered  by  fprinkling  only,  and 
to  fuch  fubjects  as  make  no  profeflion  of  their  faith  ? 
For  notwithftanding  they  conftantly  blame  us  for  refu- 
iing  them  communion  at  the  Lord^s  table,  they  do  it 
always  upon  the  fuppofition,  that  they  are  baptized  as 
well  as  we.  We  have  repeatedly  declared,  that  we 
could  not  confcientioufly  believe  them  to  be  baptized, 
according  to  the  requirement  of  the  inilitution.  We 
think  our  brethren  ought  to  believe  us.  Our  pra£lice 
fufficiently  demondrates  the  fincerlty  of  the  declaration. 
For  could  we  with  a  good  confcience  recede  from  a 
practice  fo  very  obnoxious  to  other  Chriftians,  they  cer- 
tainly muft  fuppofe  we  fliould  wifh  to  do  it.  Therefore 
to  charge  us  with  holding  the  ^  fentiment  merely  from 
party  fpirit,  ar  with  a  view  to  make  a  fchifm  in  the 
body  of  believers,  is  both  ungenerous  and  unjuft.  We 
A  2 


«  ] 


folemnly  declarej  if  we  know  the  motives  of  our  con* 
du<ft,  that  nothing  lefs  than  a  confcientious  regard  to 
what  we  believe  to  be  the  will  of  God  our  Saviour 
manifefted  in  his  word^  influences  our  pra<Slice  in  this 
particular. 

If  we  have  been  able  clearly  to  comprehend  and  ftate 
the  fubje^l:  of  the  difpute,  and  to  fliew  where  the  dif- 
ficulty lies  ;  the  next  queflion  will  be,  What  can  be 
done  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  favourable  iffue  ?  We 
fee  at  prefent  only  two  ways,  in  which  this  can  be  ef- 
fected. The  firft  is,  for  each  party  to  drop  the  difpute 
wholly,  and  to  conclude  his  brother  may  be  a  Chriliian, 
though  in  fome  points  he  may  be  erroneous.  Each 
concluding  to  retain  their  fentiments  entire,  until  they 
are  convinced  by  the  light  of  truth  that  they  are  wrong. 
Determining  like  the  Bereans  to  fearch  the  fcriptures, 
and  fee  if  thefe  things  arefo  ;  and  in  the  mean  time  to 
•unite  in  every  thing  in  which  they  are  agreed,  in  aid- 
ing the  common  caufe  of  our  glorious  Redeemer. 

Should  the  above  be  rejected,  we  conceive  the  only 
remaining  v/ay  will  be,  for  each  party  to  bring  their 
whole  ftrength  to  the  conteft,  and  determine  to  conquer^ 
or  be  conquered. 

The  former  of  thefe,  is  certainly  the  moft  pleafant 
and  defirable  ;  and  if  it  can  be  thought  practicable 
ought  to  be  purfued.  What  real  objeflion  can  there 
be  to  a  pradtiee  which  approximates  to  that  chanty  ivhieh 
biliewih  all  things y  hopeth  all  things  P  What  objeClion  } 
a  very  feriousone,  fays  my  Pa^dobaptift  brother  !  You 
refufe  to  admit  me  to  your  communion  table  •,  and  this 
you  pretend  to  do,  becaufe  you  fay  I  am  not  rightly  bap- 
tised. You  therefore  evideHtly  "  confider  me  as  one  of 
the  ant/chrijfian  world"  And  by  thus  treating  me, 
<'  you  place  me  without,  where  are  dogs^  andforcererSiand 
whoremongers^  and  murderers^  and  idolaters,  afid  luhofoever 
loveth  and  maketh  a  lie.^^*  No,  my  dear  brother,  you  in- 
fer too  haftily.  We  do  not  confider  you  as  "  on-e  of  the 
antichrijlian  ivorld,''  but  as  a  dear  child  of  God  :  yet  we 
ferioufly  think  you  are  in  an  error  refpeCting  baptifra. 
We  can  by  no  means  bring  ourfelves  to  believe,  th-at 

«  Vid.  Mr.  Avftin's  LeUers,  p.  5,  8. 


[     7    ] 

to  be  a  Chriftian,  and  to  be  baptized,  are  preclfely  the 
fame  thing.  You  feem  to  fuppofe,  that  we  lay  an  un- 
due ftrefs  upon  baptifm.  But  is  it  not  evident  that  you 
lay  much  more  ?  For  the  want  of  it,  wholly  unchrif- 
tianizes  a  perfon  in  your  view  ;  in  ours,  it  only  proves 
his  obedience  defecfkive,  without  impeaching  his  motives. 
We  fuppofe  that  blindnefs  in  part  hai  happened  to  bhuyhnt 
do  not  determine  his   heart  to  be  prevailingly  wicked. 

The  want  of  baptifm  can  take  no  more  from  a  man, 
than  the  pofleilion  of  it  could  add  to  him  ;  for  if  bap- 
tifm alone  would  not  make  him  a  Chriftian,  then  the 
want  of  it  cannot  wholly  unchriftianize  him.  Befides, 
if  you  have  that  charity  which  heareth  all  thingSy  and 
which  endureth  all  things^  will  it  not  enable  you  to  bear 
nvith  us  a  little  vn  this  folly,*  if  indeed  you  efteem  it  to 
be  fuch  ? 

Should  we  not  all  a6t  much  more  in  chara^r  as 
Chriflians,  to  unite  in  every  point  of  truth  in  which  we 
are  agreed,  rather  than  to  treat  each  other  with  fuch 
unchriflian  inditference,  merely  becaufe  we  are  not 
agreed  in  every  thing  ?  No,  replies  another  Psedobaptift 
brother,  all  your  profeflions  of  friendlhip  are  of  nch 
avail,  fo  long  as  you  "  withhold  communion  from  us, 
thereby  treating  us  as  unchriftened  heathens,  aliens 
from  the  church  and  covenant  of  God."f  My  dear 
Sir,  you  do  not  do  us  juftice.  Your  inference  is  the 
mofk  unfavourable  that  could  be  made.  We  certainly 
mean  no  fuch  thing  by  the  praftice  which  you  repre» 
hend  ;  nor  can  we  fee  that  it  necellarily  implies  what 
you  infer.  Is  there  no  other  poflible  way  in  which  we 
can  manifeft  our  Chriftian  affection  to  each  other,  un- 
lefs  we  meet  at  the  fame  communion  table  ^  If  the 
members  of  a  particular  church  have  no  other  way  of 
expreffing  their  love  to  each  other,  than  at  periodical 
feafons  to  meet  together  at  the  Lord's  table,  we  muft 
conclude  they  are  unacquainted  with  many  of  the  prin- 
cipal advantages  to  be  dei-ived  from  the  Chriflian  pro- 
feffion. 

The  fcriptures  lead  us  to  conceive  that  this  myjlic  rite 
was  deiigned  by  our    blefled   Saviour  ,to  reprefent  his 

*■  %  Cor.  xu  X.  f  Dr.  Ofgood's  Difc.  on  Baptifm,  p.  la 


[    s    ]      ^ 

^e.itli,  and  as  an  exprcilion  of  our  hope  of  Intereft  in  it; 
and  fo,  by  confequence,  to  be  one  token  of  Chriftian  fel- 
lowfhip.  But  how  many  thoufands  of  Chrirtians  there 
are  of  the  fame  denomination,  who  have  fellowihip  with 
each  other,  but  who  never  did,  and  perhaps  never  will, 
meet  together  at  the  fame  facramental  table. 

It  is  fully  believed  that  a  conliderable  proportion  of 
the  two  denominations  are  agreed  in  the  mofl:  important 
articles  of  the  Chriftian  faith.  It  is  hence  certainly  de- 
firable  they  fliould  unite  their  efforts  to  advance  this 
beft:  of  interefts,  and  to  oppofe  the  enemies  of  our  com- 
mon falvation. 

Many  of  our  brethren  tell  us,  they  have  long  ardent- 
ly defired  this  union  among  all  real  Chriftians  : — but  ; 
— but  what  ?  Why  we  have,  fay  they,  one  very  im- 
portant objection  ;  you  will  not  admit  us  to  communion 
with  you.  Suppofing  we  cannot  confcientioufly  ;  what 
then  ?  Why  then,  we  think  it  beft  to  have  no  religious 
connexion  with  you  whatever.  Well,  if  it  muft  be  fo, 
it  muft.  But  admitting  we  are  in  an  error  in  this  par- 
ticular, is  it  of  fuch  a  nature  as  actually  to  forbid  all 
Chriftian  intercourfe  with  us  ?  We  really  believe  you 
to  be  in  an  error  as  it  refpefcs  both  the  fubje^ts  and  the 
mode  of  baptifm.  We  are  willing  to  allow  you  to  form 
the  fame  opinion  of  us  with  refpe^ft  to  our  terms  of  com- 
munion \  (for  it  muft  be  remembered  that  you  can  readily 
overlook  all  the  reft  of  our  errors,  if  we  would  only  ' 
confent  to  free  communion)  now  what  decifton  can  it  . 
be  fuppofed  an  impartial  judge  would  pafs  upon  our' 
difference  of  opinion  on  thefe  points  }  Would  he  not 
rationally  conclude,  that  all  who  are  in  heart  friendly 
to  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  and  who  agree  in  the  elTentlal 
articles  of  the  Chriftian  faith,  ought  cordially  to  unite 
their  endeavours  to  build  up  the  caufe  of  the  dear  Re- 
deemer \  Here  we  think  we  are  willing  to  meet  our 
brethren,  and  leave  every  thing  of  lefs  moment  to  the 
light  of  truth  to  adjuft.  Who  then  are  the  blameable 
caufe  of  the  prefent  difunion  ?  Attempts  will  undoubt- 
edly be  made,  to  lay  it  at  the  door  of  the  Baptifts  : 
yea,  it  is  already  placed  to  their  account.  For,  fays  a 
Rev.  Psedobaptift  brother,  «  Were  they  equally  liberal 


C    9    3 

and  candid,  (as  we  are)  the  unity  of  the  fpirk  in  tht  bottd 
of  peace  might  be  preferved,  and  all  clamour,  ftrife,  and 
divilion,  happily  prevented.  Upon  whom  then,  does 
the  guilt  of  thefe  evils  lie  ?"*  We  are  unwilling  to 
bear  the  blame,  if  we  can  honourably  clear  ourfelv^s 
of  it  ;  and  we  are  determined  to  make  an  e3brt  to  that 
purpofe. 

In  meeting  our  brethren  on  the  groimd  above  ftated, 
we  think  we  meet  them  fairly.  We  alk  no  relinquifh- 
ment  of  fentiment  on  their  part.  We  admit  them  jufl: 
as  they  are.  But  in  propofing  to  uniie  with  us,  they 
infill  upon  our  giving  up  an  article  which  is  interwoven 
with  every  part  of  our  fcntiments  as  Baptiib..  The  im- 
partial will  hence  judge  which  party  is  jultly  chargeable 
with  the  want  of  candour. 

If  our  brethren  are  determined  on  this  point,  that 
they  will  have  no  religious  connexion  with  us,  nor  fellow* 
(hip  us  as  members  of  the  houfehold  of  faith,  unlefs 
we  give  up  our  particular  communion,  we  think  we  have 
a  right  to  expe6l  from  them  fatisfa<fk)ry  proof  of  one  of 
the  two  following  articles.     Namely, 

Firji,  That  baptifm  is  not,  by  the  order  of  the  gofpel, 
required  as  an:  indifpenfable  pre-requifite  to  a  vilible 
(landing  in  the  church  of  Chrift,  and  confequently  to  a- 
participation  at  the  Lord's  table.     Or, 

Secondly,  That  neither  a  vifible  profeffion  of  faith, 
nor  an  immerfion  in  water,  are  elTeGtiai  to  gofpel  bap- 
tifm. 

We  think  we  have  a  right  to  expe(9:  them  to  furnifh 
proof  on  one  of  thefe  points,  or  ceafe  to  blame  us  for 
our  limited  communion.  We  fee  no  way  at  prefent 
how  we  can  give  up  the  former,  or  admit  the  latter, 
without  violating  our  own  confciences.  And  yet  every 
perfon  of  common  difcernment  mull  fee,  that  we  prac- 
tically admit  one  or  the  other,  by  uniting  in  free  com- 
munion with  fuch  as  we  deem  unbaptized. 

Will  our  brethren,  who  charge  us  with  being  con" 
traced  in  our  views,  attempt  to  prove,  that  believers  in 
the  apoftolic  age  were  admitted  to  communicate  to- 
gether at  the  Lord's  table,  without   firft  fubmltting  to 

•  Dr.  Ofgood's  Dlfc.  p.  ii.  ^^.^^^"^ 


L    10    3 

baptifm,  as  a  prior  inftitution  ?  We  think  they  will  not. 
An  attempt  of  this  kind  would  have  to  encounter  not 
only  the  fcripture  hiftory,  but  the  unlverfal  lentiment 
and  practice  of  Chriftians  of  all  denominations,  from  the 
commencement  of  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  down  to  the 
prefent  day  :  we  hence  conclude  none  will  undertake 
it.  As  the  fubje(ft  in  difpute  has  not,  as  we  recoiled, 
been  afTumed  on  this  ground,  we  (hall  not  at  prefent 
attempt  to  adduce  arguments  to  oppofe  it.  We  fhall 
therefore  take  it  for  granted,  until  fome  one  attempts  to 
prove  the  contrary,  that  the  two  denominations  are 
agreed  on  this  point. 

The  queftion  in  difpute  may  be  reduced  then  to  this 
fingle  point  :  Whether  thofe  who  have  only  heen/prinl- 
led  in  infancy,  before  tkey  had  any  knowledge  of  good 
or  evil,  and  confequently  before  they  were  capable  ef 
profeffing  faith  in  Chrift,  are  to  be  conlidered  as  bap- 
tized perfons,  (and  hence  duly  qualified  for  communion 
at  the  Lord's  table)  according  to  the  divine  inftitution  } 
To  this  qu^.lllon,  the  Baptifts  give  their  decided  nega- 
tive. They  have  uniformly  infifted,  that  none  have  a 
right  to  the  inftitution,  but  fuch  as  profefs  to  believe 
•with  all  the  heart.*  It  alfo  appears  clear  to  them,  that 
any  application  of  water,  fhort  of  an  entire  immerfion, 
or  bathing  of  the  whole  body,  cannot  be  conlidered  as 
gofpel  baptifiTi.  The  Psedobaptifts  take  the  oppofite 
lide  of  the  queftion,  and  attempt  to  prove  the  right  of 
infants  to  baptifm,  not  from  New  Teftament  authority, 
but  from  the  covenant  of  circumcifton  made  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  feed  *,  and  from  tht  famertefs  of  the  Jewifh 
and  Chriftian  churches.  They  alfo  attempt  to  juftlfy 
fprinkling,  or  any  partial  application  of  water  for  bap- 
tifm, principally  on  the  ground  that  the  inftitution  is 
delivered  in  fuch  indefinite  language)  that  nothing  more 
can  be  poiitively  determined,  than  that  water  in  the 
name  of  the  facred  Trinity  is  fome  how  or  other  to  be 
applied. 

From  this  plain  ftatement,  the  reader  will  readily 
perceive  the  different  ground  the  parties  take,.and  will 

*  Ads  vlii.  37. 


C    n    ] 

be  able,  it  is  hoped,  in  the  fequel,  to  determine  fatisfa^o- 
rily  which  fide  has  the  fupport  of  truth. 

That  we  may  avail  ourfelves  of  all  the  light  which 
our  opponents  have  to  offer  in  favour  of  the  above  fen- 
timents,  we  ihall  begin  with  an  examination  of  their  ar- 
guments in  fupport  of  them. 


SECTION     n. 

The  Arguments  for  Infant  Memherfiip  in  the  Gofpel  Churchy 
inferred  from  the  Covenant  of  Circumcfton^  confukred. 

1  HE  covenant  of  circumcifion  is  a  general  topic 
reforted  to  by  nearly  all  the  advocates  for  infant  bap- 
tffm.  Few  have  attempted  to  defend  it  as  having  de- 
rived its  authority  entirely  from  the  New  Teftament, 
Hence  when  you  afk  a  Pxdobaptifi:  for  his  warrant  for 
infant  baptifm,  he  will  at  once  refer  you  to  the  xviith. 
chapter  of  Genefis,  and  repeat  2i  part  of  the  covenant 
of  circumcifion  ;  (for  it  muft  be  obferved,  that  Psedo- 
baptifts  claim  no  intcreft  in  the  greater  part  of  that  cov- 
enant, any  more  than  the  Baptifts  do.)  Here  he  will 
inform  you,  that  God  was  gracioufly  pleafed  to  make 
a  grant  in  favour  of  the  infant  feed  of  the  Jewilli  pa- 
triarch, and  promifed  that  the  bleffing  of  Abraham 
lliould  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  faith.  The  fame 
grant,  he  will  tell  you,  fecures  to  the  offspring  of  every 
believer  the  right  of  admiflion  to  the  gofpel  church  and 
its  privileges.  As  if  this  ftatement  were  an  unequivocal 
anfwer  to  your  inquiry,  you  may  expert  him  to  turn  upon 
you  with  an  air  of  affurance,  and  demand  of  you  cate- 
gorical proof,  when  and  where  this  rite  of  infants  ivas 
ever  vacated  ? 

But  it  muft  be  obferved,  that  this  is  taking  for 
granted  the  very  point  in  difpute  *,  i.  e.  That  infants 
have  a  right  to  gofpel  baptifm,  becaufe  infants  under  the 
law  had  a  right  to  circumcifign.  That  the  male  off- 
fpring  of  Abraham,  and  of  his  natural  feed,  and  of  his 


C    IS    3 

fervants  smS  their  feed,  were  proper  fubje<Sls  of  the  rite 
of  circumcifion,  no  Baptift  we,  believe  ever  difputed. 
But,  that  the  partial  rite  of  infants  (for  it  was  only  fuch) 
under  the  legal  difpenfation,  fhould,  without  any  renewal 
of  the  grant  or  other  intimation,  fecure  for  them  gener- 
ally a  right  to  baptifm  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  is 
an  inference  that  cannot  be  admitted  without  proof. 
This  proof  is  what  the  Baptifts  have  long  alked  for, 
but  have  never  yet  been  able  to  obtain.  The  agreement 
between  thefe  two  difpenfations  will  be  more  particu- 
larly confidered  under  the  next  head. 

Our  bufinefs  at  prefent  is,  to  examine  the  evidence 
in  favour  of  infant  memberfhip  in  the  Chriftian  church, 
as  founded  and  refting  on  the  covenant  of  circumcifion. 
PafTing  over  for  the  prefent,  God's  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, which  contained  the  promife  of  the  Meffiah,  and 
the  bleffing  of  the  Gentile  nations  in  him,  we  ihall  pro- 
ceed immediately  to  the  confideration  of  this  covenant.* 

In  the  xviith.  chapter  of  Geneiis  this  covenant  is  re- 
corded at  large.  The  feveral  articles  of  it  may  be  enu- 
merated and  diftinguiflied  as  follows. 

Art.  I.  /  ivill  make  my  covenant  heliveeti  -me  and  thee^ 
AND  WILL  MULTIPLY  THEE  EXCEEDINGLY,  Gen.  Xvii.  2. 

The  promiffory  part  of  this  article  refpe£ted  the  nat- 
ural offspring  of  Abraham,  and  nothing  more,  as  appears 
by  numerous  other  pafTages  of  fcripture,  as  well  as  the 
one  before  us  t  uiilefs  it  fhould  be  thought  that  Abra- 
ham's natural  feed  was  typical  of  his  fpiritual.  The 
promife  in  this  article  has  been  literally  and  extenfively 
fjlfilled. 

Art.  IP.  Biheid  my  covenant  is'ivith  thee,  and  thoujhalt 
be  a  FATHER  OF  MANY  NATIONS,  ver.  4,  5. 

The  fulfilment  of  thrs  part  of  the  covenant  is  eafily 
traced  in  the  facred  hiftory.  A  number  t>f  diftincH:  na- 
tions did  arife  from  the  feed  of  Abraham,  fomebf  which 
remain  to  the  prefent  day.  There  is  nothing  in  this 
article  which  points  us  directly  to  the  church  of  Chrift. 
The  utmoft  that  can  fairly  be  made  out,  will  be  only  a 
typical  reference. 

*  As  this  coYenant  was  tilled  by  a  NcW-Teftatn£Bt  Mertyr-thc  cov- 
enant of  circumcifiob,  vc  know  of  ao  better  oawe  bjr  which  to  call  It. 


C    13    ] 

Art.  III.  The  third  particular  promifed  on  God's 
behalf  to  Abraham,  was,  not  only  that  he  fhould  be  the 
Father  of  a  numerous,  but  of  a  royal  race.     And  kings 

SHALL    COME    OF    THEE,  ver.  6. 

This  refpecSled  not  the  church  of  God,  as  fuch,  under 
any  dilpenlation  ;  but  the  natural  offspring  of  the  pa- 
triarch. Nor  is  there  any  di-4iculty  in  tracing  the  lit- 
eral fulfilment  of  this  part  of  the  covenant.  If  we  ex- 
amine the  hiftory  of  Ilhrnacl,  Abraham's  firft-born,  or 
the  family  of  Ifaac,  the  immediate  lieir  of  promife,  we 
Ihall  find  kings  in  abundance  did  fpring  from  Abraham. 
The  account  which  has  come  down  to  us  in  the  facred 
pages,  refpe(Sting  thefe  nations  and  their  kings,  furnilhes 
inconteftable  proof,  that  by  far  the  greatell  part  were 
very  wicked,  and  many  of  them  grofs  idolaters.  View 
them  collectively  or  individually,  and  you  will  fcarcely  be 
able  to  trace  a  typical  refemblance  of  that  church,  which 
Jelus  Chrift  fet  up,  under  the  new  difpenfation  ;  much 
lefs  the  church  in  an  organized  gofpel  ftate. 

Art.  IX'^.  /  ivill  ejlublijh  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,   and  thy  feed  after   tixe,  in  their  generations,  for  an 

EVERLASTING  COVENANT,  TO  BE  A  GoD  UNTO  THEE 
AND  TO  THY  SEED  AFTER  THEE.  AnD  I  WILL  GIVE 
UNTO  THEE  AND  TO  THY  SEED  AFTER  THEE,  THE 
LAND    WHEREIN    THOU    ART    A    STRANGER,      ALL     THE 

LAND  OF  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession, 
AND  I  will  be  their  God,  ver.  7,  8. 

As  this  part  of  the  covenant  contains  the  great  prin- 
ciple, from  whence  our  Pa^dobaptift  brethren  draw  their 
main  arguments,  we  will  endeavour  to  examine  every 
part  of  it  carefully. 

Here  are  two  leading  ideas  in  this  article.  The  flrft 
is,  God's  promife  to  be  a  GoD  to  >/bruham  and  his  feed. 
The  fecond,  to  give  them  the  land  of  Canaafi.  This  cove- 
nant, taken  collectively,  is  called  an  everlafing  covena?it  ; 
and  the  grant  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  an  everlaflingpofftffion. 
Whatever  blefiings  were  included  in  this  covenant,  or 
granted  by  this  polTeffioD,  all  were  conveyed  by  the  fame 
tenor.    The  fame  words  of  perpetuity  are  affixed  to  each. 

That  God  has  long  fince  by  his  prophet  pronounced 
a  Loammi  upon  that  people,*  and  by  his  righteous  prov- 

»  Hof.  i.  9. 


[     U     ] 

idence  fejefled  them  from  all  fpecial  vifible  relation  to 
him,  can  no  more  be  denied,  than  that  he  has  lufFered 
them  to  be  driven  out,  and  difpoilefied  of  the  land  of 
promife. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  inquire  more  particularly 
what  was  promii'ed  in  this  everlafting  covenant,.*  The 
language  is,  /  w///  eftahi'fb  m^  covenant^  &c.  U  he  a  Gsd 
unto  thecy  and  to  thy  feed  after  thee.  The  queftion  is,  what- 
did  God  eng^age  by  this  promife  ?  "  Every  thing,"  fays 
one,  "  that  a  God  of  mercy  can  beftow  upon  fallen 
creatures,  for  time  and  eternity."  Indeed  this  is  a  gen- 
era!  poftulatum,  taken  by  the  writers  on  that  fide  of  the 
controverfy.  But  is  it  corre(5l  ?  Will  they  be  willing 
to  abide  by  all  the  confequences,  which  will  unavoida- 
bly follow  luch  a  fuppoiltion  ?  \\rhen  God  faid,  /  ivill 
he  a  God  to  thee^  and  to  thy  feed f  "  the  promife  is  as  much 
to  the  feed,  as  to  Abraham,"  fays  a  zealous  advocate 
for  infant  memberfnip.:}:  Very  well.  But  what  was 
engaged  in  this  promife  ?  Was  it  a  promife  of  abfolute 
faving  bleflings  ?  If  not,  we  are  difputing  about  noth- 
ing. 

•  Some  pcrfons  appear  to  lay  an  undue  ftiefs  upon  the  word  ei>e*lafk 
rVir,  which  is  auntixtd  to  this  covenant,  a^  thrugh  it  were  a  pecuijup 
(harav^h riftic  of  it.  'U'l.at . ver  idoas  we  attach  to  this  exprefTign,  v/c 
cf  rcainly  ought  to  explain  it  correfpondent  to  fad,  to  thv  a^ual  ftate 
qI  things. 

The  word  evcrlafttng  to  us  docs  not  appear  peculiar  as  applkd  Iij.thji 
CiXc  before  u>.  It  is  frequently  ulcd  with  rel'pcd  to  other  covenant8.t 
It  has  a  thrttfald  application  as  cor.nf^i.^ed  with  this  covenant,  'i  he 
tirll  is  jiereral.  It  Is  called  an  everlaOiiijj:  covenant.  The  poflefTion 
♦4  the  promiied  land,  an  evcrlafting  poiicffion.  The  mark  left  upon 
rirt;iubje<^»'  <>l  this  bluody  rite  is  fh\.s  exprtffed  ;  My  covenant  fhajl  he 
iTk  yaur  ^fj'o  ior  an  fii^iiaJUng  covens:. -.t-.  Out  hrtthrcn  very  tenatioufiy 
ftitiin  rhe  hiil  of  tiirfe.  but  have  no  difiiculty  in  difpcnfing  with  the 
two  lail.  To  us  they  apj-^r  fo  entirely  conneoled,  that  we  are  led  to 
confidcr  them  all  of  the  iame  iir.port.  Yt-a,  it  appears  to  us  that  the 
two  latter  ar':  { xegetica!  of  the  former.  At  leaft,  no  part  of  the  cove- 
uant  can,  by  fair  co;!ftru(5l:ion,  be  carried  to  a  greater  extent  of  time, 
thai'  the  n')jrk  of  cinnincifion  in  the  flefh,  and  the  poffeflion  of  the  land 
«rf  Canaan,  both  of  which  are  faid  to  be  cvcriafting.  Hence  we. flee, 
that  two  parts  of  this  ccversant  calif  d  everlaflinj::  have  come  to  an  end« 
while  in  one  inftance  ihr  crprtiricn  ii»  retailed,  for  the  purppfc  of  aid- 
ng  infaat  baptilm. 

f  S^t  I.ev.  ixiv.  8.  xiii   1 7.     a  Sam.  JOtllJ,  5,.  &t. 
)  .\Tr.  P,  Fdwards,  p.  jf. 


i     i5     ] 

We  (hall  take  the  liberty  to  Aate  a  few  queries,  in 
t>rder  to  throw  light  on  the  rubje£>. 

1ft.  Did  this  promife,  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham*s  feed, 
refpect  his  natural  or  fpirituil  feed  ?  If  the  former,  then 
the  Gentiles  cannot  be  included,  for  this  plain  reafo?!, 
they  are  not  his  offspring.  If  the  latter,  none  but  be- 
lievers can  be  interelled  ;  for  no  other  are  ihcfpinttni 
feed  of  Abraham.  In  either  cafe  it  fup{)orts  no  claim  in 
favour  of  the  unbeUeving  children  of  the  Gentiles. 

2d.  Was  this  promife  abfolute  .'*  or  was  itconditional  ? 
If  ablblute,  (and  it  contained  the  faving  bleflings  of 
redemption)  will  it  not  prove  that  all  the  delcendanf] 
of  Abraham  to  the  lateft  period  of  time  will  be  favcd  ? 
We  think  this  will  unavoidably  follow.  But  this  proves 
too  much,  becaiife  it  proves  againft  fa(St,  and  fo  deilroys 
itfelf.  If  we  are  to  conlidcr  this  as  a  conditional  promife 
of  falvation,  it  will  oblige  us  to  inquire, 

3d.  What  were  the  conditions  on  which  its  bleirmgs 
were  fufpcndcd  ^  Were  they  any  thing  ihort  of  faith 
and  repentance  ?  If  fo,  it  could  not  be  a  promife  ex- 
tending to  all  Abraham's  pofterity  containing  eternal 
life  ;  for  none  but  penitent  believers  have  any  fuch 
promife  made  to  them.  Nor  will  any  others,  let  them 
defcend  from  whom  they  may,  ever  ihare  in  the  final 
bleflings  of  redemption. 

4th.  Whatever  elfe  might  be  contained  in  the  prom- 
ife made  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  in  this  covenant,  if  it 
did  not  contain  an  abfolute  promife  of  eternal  life,  it  is 
urged  againft  us  in  this  controvcrfy  to  no  purpofe  ;  and 
mul\  in  that  cafe  be  acknowledged  to  be  eilentiaily  dif- 
ferent from  what  God  has  promifed  to  believers.  God"s 
promifes  refpedtlng  his  believing  people  are  abfolute. 
They  are  not  yea  and -nay  ;  ^///  yea  and  amen  to  ihe  ghry 
of  God  by  lis.  He  that  hcaveth  my  words,,  faid  Jefus,  and 
helieveth  on  him  that  ftut  me^  hath  everlajting  lifdy  andjljall 

NEVER  COVtE  INTO  jCONDEMNATION.* 

5th.  If  all  Abraliam's  defcendants,  through  every  pe- 
riod of  time,  are  not  favcd  with  a  complete  and  everlaft- 
ing  falvation  ;  will  it  not  prove  beyond  a  reafonable 
doubt,  that  God  promifed  no  fuch  thing,   in  his  engage- 

*  John  V.  24. 


J 


[     16     3 

ment,  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  ?  We 
think  that  none,  unlefs  they  are  Univerfalifts,  will  have 
the  madnefs  to  fay,  that  all  the  natural  offspring  of 
Abraham  have  been,  or  will  be  faved.  Nor  will  any 
impioufly  dare  to  charge  God  with  a  violation  of  his 
promife.  • 

6th.  If  it  (hould  be  ikid,  that  God  did  not  engage 
abfolutely  to  fave  all  Abraham's  poiterity,  including  the 
fon  of  the  bond-woman,  the  fix  fons  of  Keturah  and 
their  defcendants  ;  Efau,  Achan,  Korah,  Daihan,  and 
Abiram,  with  all  that  unbelieving  race,  whofe  carcaffes 
fell  in  the  wildernefs  ;  but  that  he  only  engaged  to  fave 
luch  as  trufted  in,  and  obeyed  him  ;  this  would  be  a 
complete  abandonment  of  the  argument  ;  for  it 
would  place  fuch  as  claim  intereil:  in  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion  exa<flly  upon  a  level  with  all  others.  God 
has  engaged  to  fave  all  others  who  reverence,  worlhip, 
and  obey  him  -,  though  Abraham  be  ignorant  of  them y  and 
Ifrael  acknowledge  them  not.*  We  have  no  difficulty  in 
bf  lieving,  that  all  who  are  truly  pious,  whether  circum- 
tifed  or  uncircumcifed,  baptized  or  unbaptized,  will  be 

7th.  We  muft  be  allowed  to  query  once  more.  If 
God  has  not  promifed  falvation  abfolutely  to  the  feed  of 
Abraham  generally,  including  all  the  unbelievers  of 
that  nation  ;  can  the  promife  be  fuppofed  to  make  any 
better  provifion  for  the  unbelieving  feed  of  Gentile  be- 
lievers .''  It  certainly  cannot.  For  if  God  fpared  not 
the  natural  branches  hecaufe  of  wibelief  it  can  hardly  be 
fuppofed  that  Gentile  unbelievers,  whether  young  or 
old,  can  have  any  real  intereft  in,  or  union  to,  the  True 
Vine. 

If  the  reader  can  keep  in  mind  the  above  queries 
and  can  without  prejudice  allow  them  their  projier 
weight,  he  will  want  much  more  than  mere  alTertion  to 
fatisfy  him,  that  the  infant  feed  of  believers  have  a  right 
to  memberfhip  in  the  gofpel  church,  in  confequence  of 
the  promife  made  to  Abraham  and  his  feed  in  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcilion. 

*  IhAxWl.  i&. 


C     17     ] 

CoiilJ  we  believe  with  our  brethren,  that  the 
above  promiie  made  to  Abraham  and  his  fee  J,  has  de- 
Icended  in  the  fuUeft  extent  to  Gentile  believers  and 
their  leed,  the  preceding  queries  would  prefent  the 
fame  difficulties  in  this  application  of  it,  as  in  the  for- 
mer. It  would  in  this  cafe  be  extremely  natural  to  Llk, 
What  has  God  promifed  to  the  children  of  I'aidobaptiil 
believers,  m.^re  than  to  the  cliildren  of  other  believers  ? 
Has  he  promifed  falvation  to  any  while  impenitent,  on 
the  account  of  the  piety  of  their  parents  ?  or  merely 
bccaufe  they  have  been  baptized  ?  It  muft  be  anfwered 
in  the  negative. 

From  thefe  different  views  of  the  fubje<5^,  the  argu- 
ment leems  to  be  verging  to  a  point  ;  and  this  will  be 
the  only  juil:  conciufion,  He  that  kdieveihyond  is  baptized^ 
whether  defcended  from  believing,  or  infidel  parents, 
fiall  be  faved  ;  and  he  that  believeth  not,  however  pious  his 
^nct^OYS^JhcUl  be  damned.  The  fame  Lcrd  over  ally  i?  rich 
unto  all  ixiho  call  upm  him  :  for  there  is  no  refpcEl  of  per- 
fans  with  God. 

In  attempting  to  accommodate  this  covenant  with 
its  diilinguiihing  inftitute,  to  the  ftate  of  the  Gentile 
church  unJer  the  gofpel  economy,  we  meet  with  diiH- 
cuhies  at  every  ilage.  We  are  obliged  to  pafs  through 
a  long  train  of  analogical  and  inferential  reafoning.% 
which  few  perfons  are  competent  to,  in  order  to  iind  a 
plain  gofpel  inftitution,  equally  deligned  for  men  and 
women  of  all  nations  and  capacities  !  But  for  what  is  all 
this  labour  ?  Is  it  not  to  fupport  a  tradition  which  has 
no  foundation  in  the  word  of  God,  nor  in  any  authen- 
tic hiftory  of  the  primitive  apoftolic  church  ?  Does  it 
not  appear  much  more  natural  and  fafe  to  go  firth  by  the 
footjleps  of  the  flock  ,-  following  our  good  .Shepherd  in 
his  own  example  ;  remembering,  that  lohen  he  putteth 
firth  his  o-wnfjtep^  he  goeth  before  them  ? 

We  think  it  has  been  made  fufliciently  plain  in  the 
preceding  remarks,  that  if  the  covenant  promife  to 
Abraham's  feed  rei peeled  his  natural  feed,  none  of  the 
Gentiles  can  be  interefted  in  it.  If  it  refpecfled  his 
fpiritual  feed,  none  but  believers  can  be  interefted  ;  for 
no  others^  in  the  language  cf  the  New  Teftament,  are 
B  2 


[      18     ] 

conlidered  as  the  children  of  Abraham.  Hence  we  fee 
nothing  to  fupport  the  claim  of  infants,  to  memberfhip 
in  the  gofpel  church. 

But  ihould  we  admit  the  premifes  laid  down  by  our 
Paedobaptifl  brethren,  will  they  confent  to  abide  the 
fair  legitimate  confequences  of  their  own  arguments  ? 
We  very  much  doubt  it. 

Their  ftatement,  if  we  underftand  them,  is  this;  That 
believers  and  their  offspring  under  the  prefent  difpen- 
fation,  ftand  in  the  fame  covenant  relation  to  God,  as 
Abraham,  and  his  offspring  did,  under  the  former. 
And  that  they  are  under  the  fame  obligation  to  baptize 
their  children,  that  Abraham  and  his  pofterity  were  to 
circumcife  theirs.     Let  us  now  bring  the  matter  to  trial. 

By  what  authority  did  Abraham  prefume  to  circum- 
cife the  males  of  his  houfe  ?  By  the  undoubted  author- 
ity of  God.  Here  it  follows  *,  And  God /aid  unto  Abra^ 
hamy  thou  Jljalt  keep  my  covenant ^  therefore^  thou  and  thy  feed 
after  thee  in  their  generations.  This  is  my  covenant  which 
yefljall  k^ep  between  me  and  youy  and  thy  feed  after  thee  ; 
every  man-child  among  yonfhall  be  circumcifed.  And  yefhall 
circumcife  the  flefjj  of  your  for  efkin^  and  it  [hall  be  a  token  of 
the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  He  that  is  eight  days  old 
Jhall  be  circumcifed  among  you  ;  every  man-child  in  your  gen- 
erations ;  he  that  is  bought  with  thy  money  of  any  flranger 
that  is  not  of  thy  feed.  He  that  is  born  in  thy  houfe y  and  he 
that  is  bought  with  thy  money  mufi  needs  be  circumcifed  : 
and  my  cov mant  JJjall  be  in  your  flejh  for  an  EVERLASTING 

COVENANT.* 

Here  we  fee,  that  Abraham  was  obliged  to  circumcife 
all  the  males  of  his  houfe,  whether  old  or  young,  with- 
out the  leaft  regard  to  their  moral  qualifications.  No 
previous  declaration  of  faith  and  repentance  was  re- 
quired, either  in  adults  or  infants.  If  this  be  indeed 
«*  the  great  charter  of  all  our  privileges,"  and  the  very 
law  on  which  houfehold  baptifm  depends  \  we  afk,  and 
aik  ferioufly,  ought  not  our  brethren  to  pra6life  ac- 
cording to  it  in  its  full  extent,  if  they  would  be  con- 
fident }    The  patriarch  not  only  beUeved,  but  obeyed. 

In  the  felfsame  day  was  Abraham  circumcifed^  and  I/b' 

*  Gen.  xvii.  9—14. 


C    10   1 

mael  his  fon^  and  all  the  men  of  his  houjcy  horn  in  his  houfe, 
and  bought  with  money  of  thejlranger,  were  cii'cumcijed 
with  him,*  Do  PKciobaptifts  adminifter  baptifm  to  the 
fame  extent  as  Abraham  did  circumcifion  ?  Is  it  ufual 
with  them  to  baptize  not  only  the  children  of  a  family, 
but  all  the  domeftics,  upon  the  faith  of  the  mafter,  or 
head  of  the  family  ? 

The  argument  by  which  the  right  of  infants  is  fup- 
ported  is  this,  "  a  precept  once  in  force,  and  not  lim- 
ited to  any  certain  period,  is  ever  after  to  be  confidered 
in  force,  unlefs  known  to  have  been  repealed  by  the 
fame  authority  by  which  it  was  given.'^f  We  afk,  and 
hope  we  fhall  have  a  fair  and  candid  anfwer,  if  fuch 
an  one  can  be  given,  When,  and  where  has  the  right 
of  fervants  as  diftinguilhed  from  that  of  children  been 
repealed  ?  If  the  right  of  children  to  memberlhip  refts 
on  this  covenant,  is  not  the  right  of  fervants  com- 
pletely fecured  by  the  fame  ?  This  we  are  equally 
bound  to  believe  as  the  former,  until  it  can  be  Ihown 
to  the  contrary. 

How  many  men-fervants  Abraham  had  at  the  time 
circumciiion  was  inftituted,  we  know  not  j  but  fome 
time  before  he  had  three  hundred.  Probably  as  many, 
or  more  at  this  time.  All,  were  they  more  or  lels, 
were  circumcifed.  But  would  it  not  be  a  very  novel 
fight  to  fee  one  of  our  fouthern  planters  baptized,  and 
all  the  flaves  on  his  plantation  in  the  fame  day.  If  they 
were  all  true  Chriftians,  it  would  be  a  bleffed  fight  in- 
deed ;  but  not  otherwife. 

This  argument  will  probably  be  very  unpleafant  to 
our  opponents,  but  we  appeal  to  them,  and  to  a  candid 
pubUc,  whether  it  is  not  corre<5t,  and  whether  it  can 
be  fairly  evaded  ^  If  the  covenant  of  circumciiion  will, 
by  fair  conftru*5\ion,  fupport  the  right  of  infants  to 
memberfhip  in  the  gofpel  church,  we  verily  believe, 
and  we  muft  contend,  that  the  right  of  fervants  can  be 
fupported  by  it  to  the  fame  extent. 

2.  A  fecond  confequence  ariling  from  the  premlfes 
laid  down  by  our  brethren  is,  that  infants,  if  admitted  to 
baptifm,  have  an  undoubted  rigiit  to  all  the  other  priv- 

*  Gen.  xvii.  a6,  a;.  f  Mr.  S,  Worccfter's  Difc  p.  56. 


[     20     1 

ilegcs  of  the  gofpel  church.  It  is  conceived  that  no 
reafon  can  be  afligned,  why  a  perfon  who  is  qualified 
for  one  ordinance,  is  not  equally  qualified  for  another. 
No  diftin<flion  has  been  made  under  any  difpenfation. 
Circunicifion  was  the  principal  qualifying-  pre-requifitc 
for  communion  in  the  pafchal  feaft,  and  for  all  the 
privileges  of  complete  memberdnp  in  the  Jewiih  church. 
Under  the  gofp^^l  difpenfation,  Tkey  that  gladly  received 
the  word  luere  baptized  \  addetl  to  the  church,  and  then 
united  ia  breaking  bread.  Do  Padobaptifts  admit  all 
fuch  as  they  baptize  in  their  infancy,  to  a  participation 
in  all  the  privileges  of  the  Chriftian  churchy .^  It  is  well 
known  they  do  not  :  and  yet  confiftency  moft  plainly 
requires  it^ 

That  we  reafon  fairly,  and  agreeably  to  tlie  views  of 
Pxdobaptifts  themfelves,  the  following  quotations  will 
abundantly  fhovv.  «  Circumcilion,"  (ays  a  late  writer, 
"  was  formerly  the  appointed  pre-requiiite  of  udmijjion  tt» 
the  church  of  God  ;  baptifm  is  now  the  appointed  pr£- 
requifite  of  admlflion  to  the  fame  church.  In  a  word, 
baptifm  is  of  the  fame  import,  and  of  the  fame  ufe  in 
the  church  under  the  prefent  difpenfation,  as  was  cir- 
cumcinon  under  the  ancient."*  Says  another,  *'  by  this 
fignificant  rite  (circumciiion)  they  were  dedicated  to 
God,  and  dljiinguijhed  from  the  rejl  of  the  worlds  as  his 
church  afid  people. "^  According  to  thefe  gentlemen, 
and  we  believe  they  are  corre(^t  in  this,  baptifm  is  the 
appointed  medium  of  introduction  into  the  Chriftian 
church.  (It  is  hoped  that  the  reader  will  remember 
this,  as  we  Ihall  probably  have  occalion  to  make  fome 
further  ufe  of  it  by  and  by.)  But  how  glaringly  in- 
confiftent  muft  their  condud  appear  when  compared 
with  their  reafonings  \ 

In  order  to  carry  a  point  againfk  the  Baptifts,  they 
infift  upon  it  that  their  baptized  infants  are  church 
members.  But  their  pra<5lice  tells  every  body,  that 
they  believe  no  fuch  thing.  "We  appeal  to  common 
obfervation.  Do  they  conftantly  bring  their  children 
to  the  communion  table  }  Do  they  maintain  arty 
church  difcipline  over  them  ?    Are  they  permitted  to 

*  Mr.  S.  Wopceftcr's  DIfc  p.  5  i.  54-  t  Dr.  Ofgood. 


[     21     ] 

vote  and  a£b  in  church  matters  ?  Are  there  any  inftan- 
ces  in  which  the  profane  and  licentious  have  been  the 
fubje^ls  of  church  cenfure  ?  A  filent  negative  muft  be 
given  to  all  thefe  qucfticns.  From  the  general  conduct 
of  the  churches  that  hold  infant  baptifm,  a  candid 
mind  would  naturally  fuppofe,  that  the  memberfhip  of 
infants,  if  it  ever  exiHed,  ceafed  as  foon  as  they  were 
baptized. 

Another  circumftance  which  fervcs  to  corroborate 
our  laft  obfervation  is,  that  they  admit  all  v/hom  they 
treat  as  church  members,  in  a  manner  fimilar  to  what 
we  do.  Hence  we  are  frequently  told,  on  fuch  a  day 
a  number    of    perfons  were   received   into    the    Rev. 

Mr. *s  church,  and   at  another  time  twenty  more 

were  added,  and  fo  on.  If  our  Paidcbaptifl  brethren 
ferioufly  believe  what  they  endeavour  to  make  us  be- 
lieve, that  all  their  baptized  children  were,  by  that  act, 
admitted  to  villble  memberfhip  in  the  church,  we  can 
hardly  fee  the  propriety  of  their  being  admitted  a  fcc- 
ond  time  •,  unlefs  by  feme  miicondu(5l  of  their  own, 
they  had  loft  their  ftanding,  like  the  man  in  the  church 
at  Corinth,  whom  the  apoftle  exhorted  them  again  to  re- 
ceive, when  he  became  repentant. 

What  conclufion  would  any  candid  perfon  put  upon 
the  condufl  of  a  Psedobaptift  church,  on  feeing  them 
receive  by  their  ufiial  folemnity,  a  number  of  perfons 
into  viable  fellov/lhip  with  them  ?  Would  not  the  con- 
viiSlion  be  irrefiftible,  that  they  had  never  before  be«n 
confidered  as  church  members  ?  Indeed,  for  any  to 
have  obferved  the  conduct  of  thefe  perfons,  and  of  the 
church  towards  them,  during  the  whole  intervening 
period  from  their  baptifm  in  infancy,  to  their  making 
this  engagement  ;  would  it  be  pofllble  to  drav/  the  con- 
clufion, that  any  relation  had  fubiifled  between  them, 
which  had  had  the  leaft  influence  on  the  condu<rt  of 
either  ?  Is  it  not  perfe(Slly  aftonifhing,  that  men  of 
learning  and  of  piety,  and  who  claim  the  privilege  of  be- 
ing thought  conhftent,  fhould  not  fee  as  well  as  others, 
that  their  fentiments  and  practice  are  totally  at  variance 
with  each  other  ?  As  much  as  they  find  fault  with  our 
particular  communion,  they  have  never  yet  been  able 


[     22     ] 

to  prove  it  inconfillcnt  with  our  fentiments  rerpe£ting 
baptifm.  Indeed  many  Psdobaptifts  have  acknowl- 
edged, that  they  thought  us  entirely  conliftent  in  this 
particular. 

3.  We  proceed  to  notice  a  third  confequencc  from 
the  poiition  laid  down  by  our  brethren,  i.  e.  That  if 
baptized  perfons  ftand  in  the  fame  relation  to  the 
church  under  the  prefent  dlfpenfation,  as  circumcifed 
perfons  did  under  the  former  j  they  are  equally  obliged 
by  the  fame  penalties,  to  attend  the  fublequent  duties 
of  the  gofpel  church,  as  the  others  were  thofe  of  the 
Jewifli. 

Our  meaning  will  be  fully  illuftrated  by  carefully 
attending  to  the  ordinance  of  the  paflbver.  The  law 
concerning  it  is  in  the  following  words  j  And  the  Lord 
/aid  unto  Mafes  and  Aaron^  This  is  the  ordinatice  of  the 
pajfover  ,•  There Jhall  no  fir  anger  eat  thereof^  but  every  man*s 
fervant  that  is  bought  for  jnoniyy  when  thou  kafi  circumcifed 
kiniy  thenfiall  he  eat  thereof :  All  the  congregation  of  Ifrasl 
fhall  keep  it  ;  ^nd  ivhen  any  fir  anger fljcdl  fojourn  with  thee^ 
and  will  keep  the  pajfover  to  the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  he 
circumcifed^  and  then  let  him  ccme  near  and  keep  it* 

Every  circumcifed  perfon,  who  was  not  prevented  by 
ceremonial  uncleannefs,  or  by  being  abfent,  was  not  only 
permittddy  but  obliged  to  keep  the  paflbver,  on  pain  of 
being  cut  offfrotn  his  people  :  for  thus  it  is  written  ;  But 
the  man  that  is  clean^  and  is  not  in  ajourneyy  and  forbear eth 
U  keep  the  paffjver,  even  that  fame  foul  fljall  be  cut  off  from 
his  people. \ 

Do  our  brethren  confider  all  their  baptized  children 
and  fervants  under  the  fame  obligation  ?  If  fo,  ought 
not  niinifters  to  urge  the  duty,  and  heads  of  families  and 
members  of  churches,  to  fee  it  carried  into  ef%£l ;  and  if 
any  wereftubbom,  to  cut  them  ofFby  anacStof  excluiion? 
This  would  indeed  eftablilh  infant  communion  to  sU 
intents  and  purpofes ;  but  what  of  that  ?  Can  there  be 
an  inftance  produced,  from  the  hiilory  of  the  Jewiili 
church,  where  a  ftate  of  nonage  or  minority  has  been 
mentioned  as  a  difquaUfying  circumftance  for  commu- 
nion in  the   pafchai  feaft  ?    We  do  not  recollecft  any. 

*  fxoj  xii.  4j,  44,  47,  48.  f  Numb.  ix.  13. 


C     29     ] 

The  laMT  of  the  paflbver  makes  no  diftin£tion  between 
infants  and  adults.  To  be  circumcifed,  and  to  be  free 
from  ceremonial  uncleunnefs,  were  the  only  conditions 
required. 

Should  any  reply,  that  the  Lord*s  fupper  is  a  holy 
ordinance  ;  and  requires,  in  every  recipient,  faith  to 
difcern  the  Lord's  body,  we  readily  grant  it  ;  but 
muft  be  allowed  to  aik,  is  not  baptifm  a  holy  ordinance 
likewile  ^  If  fo,  is  not  a  perfon  who  is  qualified  for 
one,  fit  for  the  other  ?  Do  the  fcriptures  require  dif- 
ferent qualificati(Mis  for  the  two  ordinances  ^  The  ar- 
guments which  are  employed  in  behalf  of  infants,  in  or- 
der to  evade  the  fcriptural  requirements  of  f nit b  and 
repentath-ey  by  Mr.  Edwards,  will  equally  ferve  their 
turn  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  iupper.  If  what  is  faid 
of  kelievitig  and  i't'/>i';itf.'fg  in  order  to  baptifm,  applies 
only  to  adults  ;  the  fame  may  be  faid  with  regard  to 
the  faecamental  fupper. 

To  fhow  that  we  reafon  fairly,  we  will  take  one  of 
his  arguments,  and  only  by  placing  the  Lord>  fupper 
in  the  room  of  baptifm,  it  will  f>and  thus,  "  Are  infants 
proper  fubjei^s  cf  the  Lord's  fupper^  or  are  they  not  ? 
It  will  clearly  follow,  that  all  thofe  places  which  relate 
to  believers  can  prove  nothing  ,  the  reafon  is,  they  have 
no  relation  to  the  queftion."  If  you  pleafe,  take  an- 
other ftatemcnt  from  the  fame  writer.  "  They  (i.  e. 
the  Baptifts)  fay  the  fcriptures  require  faith  and  repent- 
ance in  order  to  baptifm.  I  afk,  fays  he,  of  whom  ^ 
the  anfwer  muft  be,  of  adults  ;  for  the  fcriptures  never 
require  them  of  infants  in  order  to  any  ih'wg^'*  Very 
well,  Mr;  Edwards  ;  you  will  have  no  great  difficulty  in 
this  way,  in  getting  them  to  the  communion  table. 
The  want  of faiih  to  difcern  the  LorcCs  body^  can  no  more 
be  urged  againft  the  claim  of  infants  to  this  inftitution, 
than  the  want  of  faith  and  repentance  can  be  urged 
againft  their  baptifm.  The  fame  arguments  which 
would  prove  their  right  to  one  inftitution,  would  equal- 
ly fupport  their  claim  to  the  other.  The  words  of 
Chrift,  buffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them 
nut,  maj^  be  applied  with  quite   as  much  propriety  to 

*  Mr.  Edwtrdif  p.  %i,%u 


C      24     ] 

this  inftltution  as  to  baptifm,  and  might  be  adJrefled 
with  as  much  pathos  to  the  tender  feelings  of  a  parent. 
Let  Mr.  Edwards,  or  any  other  man,  difprove  the  right 
of  infants  to  the  communion  table,  and  we  pledge  our- 
felves  by  the  fame  arguments  to  difprove  their  right  to 
baptifm. 

To  give  additional  force  to  the  preceding  obferva- 
tions,  let  it  be  remembered,  that  infant  baptifm,  and  in- 
fant communion,  make  their  appearance  in  eccleiiaftical 
hiftory  nearly  together. 

The  Rev.  Mr,  James  Pierce,  of  Exon,  about  eighty 
years  ago,  volunteered  his  fervice  in  the  caufe  of  infajit 
communion,  as  Dr.  Ofgood  has  lately  done  in  favour  of 
their  baptifm.  Mr.  Pierce  has  fuftained  the  right  of 
infants  to  the  eucharift  on  the  fame  ground,  and  de- 
fended it  by  the  fame  arguments,  as  modern  Px'dobap- 
tifts  do  their  right  to  baptifm.  It  will  be  difficult  to 
fhew  wherein  his  arguments  fail  of  being  equally  as 
conclulive  as  theirs.  ,    •> 

Should  it  be  faid  that  there  is  no  mention  made  in 
the  New  Teftament  of  infant  communion,  the  fame 
may  be  faid  of  infant  baptifm.  It  will  be  equally  in 
vain  to  urge  their  incapacity  to  underftand,  or  to  derive 
fpiritual  advantage  from  this  folemn  rite  ;  the  fame  may 
be  objected  to  their  baptifm.  That  the  eucharift  was 
given  to  fome  who  were  called  infants,  tdwards  the 
dofe  of  the  third  century,  we  have  the  authority  of 
Dr.  Mofticim.*  It  is  not  certain,  however,  that  thefe 
infants  were  hahes.  It  appears  to  have  been  a  cuftom 
at  this  time  to  call  all  minors  infants.  It  is  evident 
beyond  a  doubt,  that  the  infatjts  whofe  baptifm  Tertul- 
lian  oppofed,  were  not  babes,  but  probably  children  of 
feven  or  eight  years  old.  'Such  as  were  capable  of 
«  alking  to  be  baptized,"  but  fuch  as,  in  his  judgment, 
were  not  fufficiently  enlightened  and  eftablilhed  in  the 
docftrine  of  Chrift.  His  words  are  thus  rendered  5 
"  The  condefcenfion  of  God  may  confer  his  favours  as 
he  pleafes  ;  but  our  wiflies  may  miflead  ourfelves  and 
others.  It  is  therefore  moft  expedient  to  defer  bap- 
tifm, and  to  regulate  the  adminiftration  of  it,  according 

^EcclHift-V^lLp.  J83. 


[     25     ] 

to  the  dirpofitlon,  and  the  age  of  the  perfons  to  be  bap- 
tized :  (prieclpue  tamen  circa  parvulcs)  and  efpecially  in 
the  cafe  of  little  ones'^*  The  general  tenor  of  his  reason- 
ing obliges  us  to  underftand  him*  in  this  light.  This 
will  appear  lefs  fingular  when  we  conlider  that  he  had 
been  in  the  practice  of  the  law,  before  he  became  a 
teacher  of  religion.  That  minors  are  frequently  called 
infants  in  law,  will  appear  by  a  quotation  from  judge 
Blackftone  :  "  Infancy,  "fays  he/'  is  nonage,  which  is 
a  defedl  of  the  underfranding.  Infants  under  the  age 
of  difcretion  ought  not  to  be  punilhed  by  any  criminal 
profecution  whatever.  What  the  age  of  difcretion  is, 
in  various  nations,  is  matter  of  fome  varlety."f 

It  matters  not,  however,  in  the  prefent  argument, 
^vhether  thefe  infants  were  mere  hahes,  or  children  who 
were  old  enough  to  afli  for  baptifm.  It  is  evident  that 
infant  communion  commenced  nearly  if  not  exadlly  at 
the  fame  time  that  infant  baptifm  did.  Dr.  Wall 
makes  this  acknowledgment,  when  fpeaking  of  giving 
the  communion  to  infants.  "  Very  near  half  the  Chrif- 
tians  in  the  world  do  flill  continue  that  pracflice.  The 
Greek  church,  the  Armenians^  the  Alaronitcs^  the  Cobhtiy 
the  Abajjhuy  the  Afufcovitesy  &c.  ; — and  fo,  for  aught  I 
know,  do  all  the  reft  of  the  eaftern  Chriftians."J  The 
Do£tor  further  acknowledges,  that  this  cuftom  prevailed 
in  St.  Auftin's  time,  who  commenced  his  miniftry  in  the 
year  391,  (about  as  early  as  we  have  any  authentic  ac- 
count of  infant  baptifm) — That  it  continued  in  the 
weftern  church  for  fix  hundred  years — "  That  the 
Roman  church,  about  the  year  one  tboufand,  entertain- 
ing the  doctrine  of  tranfubftantiation,  let  fall  the  cuftom 
of  giving  the  holy  elements  to  infants  ;  and  the  other 
ivejttrn  churches,  mofily  foilov/ing  their  example,  did  tha 
like  upon  the  fame  account.  But  that  the  Greeks^  not 
having  the  faid  doctrine,  continued,  and  do  ftill  con- 
tinue, the  cuftom  of  communicating  infants."§ 

*  Parvulus,  the  word  ufcd  by  Tcrtullian,  is  of  vague  fignificatlon. 
It  is  not  neccffarily,  and  in  this  cafe  can  by  no  means  be,  confined  to  «ui 
infant. 

f  Comment    Book  Iv.  Chap.  ii. 

\  Hift.  of  infant  baptifm,  p.  Ji  7. 

§  Ibid. 


t     26     ] 

As  th^  preceding  quotations  refer  us  back  to  Aal^ 
tin,*  we  think  it  beft  to  give  our  readers  bis  fentimen-ts 
upon  the  fubje(^l;  in  his  own  words.  It  appears  that 
from  a  miftaken  view  of  tbofe  words  of  Ciirift,  John 
iii.  5.  Except  a  man  be  bom  of  lunter  and  of  the  Spirit 
he  cannot  enter  into  the  kwgdom  of  God  ;  he,  with  many 
others,  inferred  the  necellity  of  baptizing  infants  in 
order  to  their  ialvation.  The  i^Lmt  erroneous  conrtruc- 
tion  of  John  vi  B%.  Esvepi  ye  eat  tha  fijh  cf  the  Sjn  of 
man,  and  drink  his  hlcod^  ye  have  no  life  in  wu  ;  led  hirn 
w4th  much  zeal  to  plead  for  the  admifiion  of  infantas 
to  the  Jjord's  table.  With  regard  to  the  latter,  his 
words  are,  "  Let  us  hear  the  Lord,  I  fay,  not  indeed 
fpeaking  tliis  of  the  holy  laver,  but  of  tJje  flicrament  of 
the  holy  table,  (whither  none  righily  cor4.E  unless 
baptized)  Except  ye  cat  my  flijlj^  and  drink  my  blood ,  y£ 
Jhall  haiae  no  life  in  y&u.  What  do  you  feek  for  further  ? 
What  can  be  faid  in.  anfwer  to  this,  unlefe  one  would 
fet.  himfelf  againft  clear  and  iRvincibtc  truth  ?  Will 
any  one  dare  to  fay  this,  that  this  palTage  does  not  be- 
long to  infants  ;  and  that  they  can  have  life  in  them- 
felves  without  partaking  of  his  body  and  blood  ?"  And 
tlie  neceiTity  ol  this,  as  well  as  of  baptifm  to  eternal 
life,  he  fays,  the  African  Chriftians  took  to  be  an  an*- 
cient  and  apofi:olic  tradition.f  They  did  not  pretend 
that  either  of  them  were  in  the  Bible. 

It  will  he  aiked,  liow  c^iie  infant  communion  to  ht 
}>aid  aiide,  after  its  having  travelled  hand  in  hand  with 
infant  baptifm  for  fo  many  centuries  ?  The  reafort 
alBgned  by  Dr.  Wall  is,  the  admiliion  of  that  ghoftly 
doctrine  of  trutfulfaniiatkn,  W^e  are  at  a  lofs  how 
this  Ihoiild  aifecl  it  ;  unlefi  by  this  fuppofed  change  of 
the  elements^  they  thought  them  too  holy  to  be  trifled 
tcith  in  this  way. 

Thai:  thefe  little  Cliriftians,  who  had  not  yet  been 
drawn  from  the  brenfl^  mr  learnt  doElrine^  might  not  refufe 
the  elements  when  offered,  the  following  rule  was  eftab- 
li^hed  i  "  Gave,"  fay  they,  «  is  to  be  taken  concerning 
infants,  that  they  fhould  not  without  the   utmoft  ne-* 

*  Augulline,  but  as  often  called  Aufluj. 
f  Ep.  io6.  Bonifacio,  contr.  Pelag. 


C     27     ] 

ceffity  receive  ^nyfood  cnr  fuck  after  they  are  baptized, 
before  they  communicate  in  the  facrament  of  our 
Lord's  body."* 

It  win  require  much  ingenuity  to  maintain  the  right 
of  infants  to  mcinberihip  in  the  gofpel  church  on  the 
footing  of  circumcilion,  and  not  admit  all  the  confe- 
quences  above  ftated.  For  ourfelves,  we  fee  no  way  to 
embrace  one,  without  admitting  tlie  other  :  and  to  ad- 
mit  either,  appears  to  us  to  be  fubverdve  of  the  great 
defign  of  the  gofpel,  which  was  to  form  a  church,  dif- 
tind  from  the  world.  But  if  infant  baptifm  brings 
them  into  the  church,  it  totally  deftroys  that  diftindtion, 
and  blends  the  world  and  church  together.  This  idea 
will  be  more  particularly  ccnfidered  in  its  proper  place. 

As  our  Pa:dobaptiil:  brethren  lay  fo  much  ftrefs  upon 
this  part  of  the  fubjecl:,  we  mud  be  allowed  to  view  it 
on  all  fides. 

Could  we  be  brought  with  them  to  confider  the  in- 
fant OiTspnng  of  Gentile  believers,  as  (landing  in  th« 
fame  covenant  relation  to  God  as  the  natural  feed  of 
Abraham  did,  yet  ftill  we  fee  nothing,  either  in  the 
old  or  new  law,  which  would  authorize  their  baptifm. 
An  article  every  way  fo  different  as  baptifm  is  from  cir- 
cumcilion, feems  not  to  be  fuiliciently  fupooiteJ  hf 
mere  inference,  but  needs  the  firm  balls  of  pkii.i  posi- 
tive inftitution  to  reft  upon.  To  infer  the  right  cf  in- 
fants to  baptifm  from  the  covenant  of  circumcifion, 
appears  to  us  extremely  forced  and  unnatural.  Son\e 
of  the  difficulties  that  an  inference  of  this  kind  labours 
under,  are  the  following  : 

1.  The  law  of  circumcifion  was  a  pofitivc  law,  not 
at  all  dependent  on  the  nature  and  titnefs  of  things  : 
hence  every  thing  which  related  to  the  inftitute,  de- 
pe!ided  on  the  exprefs  declaration  of  the  inftitutor. 
This  is  precifely  the  cafe  with  baptifm  \  therefore  therft 
can  be  no  arguing  from  one  to  the  other. 

2.  The  inftitution  of  circumcifion  was  exprefsly  lim- 
ited to  males.  Females,  though  defcending  from  the 
films  parents,  were  not  fubjefls  of  the  take::  of  that  coV- 

*  Ofdo  Romanus,  Tit.  de  Bapt.  in  Pi jr'rc. 


[     28     3 

enant  :    but    the    baptifmal   inftitutlon  includes    botk 
men  and  women. 

3.  The  law  of  circumcifion  required  no  previous 
profeffion  of  faith  and  repentance,  neither  in  adults  nor 
infants  J  as  a  qualification  for  that  inftituticn  :  but  the 
gofpel  pofitively  requires  fuch  a  profeflion  in  order  to 
baptifm,  without  even  an  exception  in  favour  of  in- 
fants. 

4.  A  male  flave  bought  with  money  of  an  age  above 
eight  daysj  whether  a  believer  or  an  infidel,  whether  an 
idolater  or  an  atheiil:,  had  the  fame  right  to  circumcif- 
ion as  the  infant  feed  of  his  mafter  had.  The  gofpel 
jnftitution  makes  no  provifion  for  flaves  until  they  are 
made  fyee  h\  the  Son  ;  and  then  it  requires,  as  a  pre-re- 
quifite  to  baptifm,  the  fame  public  profeffion  of  them  as 
of  their  believing  mafters. 

5  The  rite  infelf  is  fo  very  unlike  the  gofpel  inftitute, 
that  it  appears  extremely  unnatural  to  infer  one  from  the 
other.  Circumcifion  was  a  painful  bloody  rite,  per- 
formed by  cutting  the  flefh  of  a  particular  part,  (which 
delicacy  forbids  us  to  name.)  Baptifm  is  an  immerfion, 
or  wafhing  of  the  whole  body  in  pure  water. 

6.  Circumcifion  might  be  lawfully  adminiflered  by 
any  perfon,  at  leafl  by  any  head  of  a  family,  whether 
male  or  female.*  Baptifm  is  to  be  adminiftered  by 
particular  officers  in  the  Chriftian  church,  called  and 
qnlified  for  the  v/ork. 

Other  diffimilarities  might  be  urged,  but  thefe  are 
thought  fufHcient  to  fhew,  that  it  is  not  the  eafiefh  thing 
in  the  world  to  infer  baptifm  from  circumcifion.  It 
certainly  requires  a  large  ftock  of  myftical  jefuitical  in- 
genuity, to  make  an  inference  appear  plaulible,  where 
the  nature,  a^V,  and  defign  are  fo  different.  If  infants 
are  to  be  baptized,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  the  infVi- 
tution  makes  ample  proviiion  for  them,  without  fubjedl- 
ing  us  to  the  perplexity  of  tracing  it  out  from  an  anti- 
quated Jewifh  rite. 

Psedobaptifts,  when  they  reafon  with  one  another, 
and  are  not  fufpicious  that  the  Baptifts  are  watching  to 

*  Zipporah  eircumcifed  the  two  fons  of  Mofcs  with  a  fharp  ftone. 
Mldwive*  have  frequently  adminiftered  baptif.n,  that  is,  fprinkling,  te 
^ying  infants.     Vid.  Robinfon's  Hill,  ©f  Bap. 


r  29  3 

take  advantagb  of  their   conceflioiis,  reafon  jufl  as  we 
do.     This  remark   will   be  eftabliOied  by  a  quotation 
from  Dr.  Emmons*s   Differlation  on    the  qualftications 
for   the   Chriftian   facraments,  &g.   againft    Dr.   liem- 
meuway.     We  think  the   whole  work  worth)^    a  can- 
did perufal,  but  can  only  fele6l:  a  part  of  one  of  his  ar- 
guments.    «  Dr.  Hemmenway,"  fays  he,  «  has  followed 
other  writers  in   arguing  from  the'former  difpenfations 
of  the  coveniint  of  grace,  to  the  prefent,  and  endeavour- 
ing to  prove   what  the  peculiar  duties  of  believers  are, 
under  the  prefent  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
from  what   they   were  under   its  former  difpenfations. 
But  this  mode  of    reafoning  is  by   no   means   conclu- 
five.^    It  was  the   duty   of  believers  under   former  dif- 
penfations of  the  covenant  of  grace,  to  offer  facrilices  ; 
but   can  we  hence  infer  that  it  is  their  duty  now  ?    It 
was  the  duty  of  believers   under  former   difpen  flit  ions 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,   to   circumcife   their  children 
and  attend  the  pafTover  ;  but  does  it  hence  follow  that 
thofe  duties  are   ftill   binding  ?    Or   can  we  juflly  con- 
clude, that  it  is  the  duty  of  bshevers  now  to  circumcife 
their  children,  or  even  to   baptize  them,  becaufe  it  lu.is 
ence  their  duty  to   circumcife  them  }    The  truth  is,  we 
muft  learn  the  peculiar  duties  of  believers  under  the  pref- 
ent difpenfation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  from  the  dif- 
penfation itfelf,  which  enjoins  all  the  peculiar  du- 
ties WHICH  BELONG  TO  IT.     If  believers  are  to  baptize 
their  children,  as  they  undoubtedly  are,  it  is  not  becaufe 
they  were  once  obliged   to  circumcife  them."     «  The 
Chriftian  difpenfation,  which  is  allowed  to  be  the  freeft 
from  types  and  figures,   plainly  fpeaks  for  itfelf.     And 
we  ought  to  look  into  the  clear  difpenfation  of  the  gof- 
pel,  in  order  to  difcover  the  pecuhar  duties  of  believers, 
at  the  prefent  day."*     "Would  it  not  be  a  high  r»efleaioa 
wpon  Dr.  Emmons's  confiftency,  to  fuppofe,  after  fuch 
an  explicit,  candid,  and  rational  ftatement,  he  would  ever 
attempt  to  prove  infant  baptifm  from  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion,  or  from  any  thing  elfe  but  the  New  Telia- 
ment  ?  Whether  he  has,  or  has  not,  we  leave  thofe  who 
Are  acquainted  with  his  writings  to  determine.     Qt-% 

*  Diff.  chap  ii.  h&..  V. 

c  2 


[    so    ]      . 

thing,  however,  we  muH:  be  permitted  to  fay,  We  verily 
believe  that  could  the  Do6tor,  with  an  unprejudiced 
mind,  admit  the  fair  conclufion  which  muiT:  arife  from 
his  own  reafoning,  it  would  inevitably  bring  him  to 
believers^  bapt'ifm^  or  leave  him  in  complete  inconfif- 
tency  ! 

Having  carefully  examined  every  article  in  the  cov- 
enant of  circumcifion,  and  traced  fome  of  the  confe- 
quences  which  muft  follow  on  admitting  its  application 
to  the  prefent  ftate  of  the  Chriftian  church,  we  think 
it  is  demonftrably  plain,  that  its  firft  and  immediate 
promifes  and  requirements  refpefted  the  pofterity  of 
Abraham  j  that  it  has  at  moft,  only  a  typical  reference 
to  the  gofpel  Gentile  church  •,  and  that  even  this  typ- 
ical relation,  like  all  other  types,  ought  to  be  applied 
with  great  caution  and  circumfpedlion.  It  is  worthy  of 
obfervation,  that  types  and  the  things  that  are  repre- 
fanted  by  them,  although  there  is  fome  likenefs,  are 
aiv/ays  diftin<n-. 

The  promifes  which  were  made  to  Abraham,  refpeiH:- 
ing  the  Gentiles,  that  in  him^  and  in  his  fecdy  all  the  na- 
tions or  families  of  the  earth  (liould  be  blefled,  were 
neither  exprefTed  nor  included  in  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcifion  j  but  were  entirely  diftindl,  and  independent 
of  it.  It  ought  never  to  be  forgotten  by  all  who  attend 
to  this  controverfy,  that  the  great  promife  which  God 
made  to  Abraham,  and  which  is  fo  much  contended  for, 
was  made  twenty-four  years  before  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumciiion  j*  and  was  renewed  about  twenty  years  af- 
ter \-\  but  not  mentioned  in  the  whole  of  that  tranfadlion. 
The  promife  to  Abraham,  that  in  him  all  the  families  of  the 
earth fiould  he  hltfccU  was  predicated,  we  humbly  conceive^ 
on  the  covenant  of  redemption,  confirmed  before  of  God 
in  Chrifi  ;%  and  was  ratified  by  the  folemnity  of  an 
oath,  which  would  have  carried  it  into  complete  effejSt, 
had  the  covenant  of  circumciiion  never  exifted.  The 
further  illuftration  and  proof  of  what  we  have  now  af- 
lerted,  will  be  referved  for  another  part  of  this  work. 


[     SI     ] 


SECTION     III. 

Whether  the  Jcivijh  and  Chri/lian  Churches  are  the  fame. 
Or  ivhether  the  latter  is  a  diJiinB  Church,  or  a  mere  con^ 
t'lnuat'ion  of  the  former,  confide  red, 

1  HE  entire  filence  of  the  New  Teftament  with 
refpefl  to  the  baptifm  of  babes,  has  led  its  advocates  to 
trace  its  origin  back  to  the  covenant  of  circumcifion. 
Their  arguments  implicitly  tell  us,  that  they  do  not 
wiiTi  to  hazard  its  defence  upon  the  footing  of  its 
being  an  inftitution  of  the  gofpel  ;  but  choofe  rath- 
er to  conlider  it  as  a  right  eftabliilied  and  fecured 
to  infants,  under  the  former  dlfpenfation.  That  the 
male  infants  of  the  Jews  were  circumcifedj  conformably 
to  the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abraham  their 
ancellor,  recorded  in  the  xviith  chapter  of  Genciis, 
no  one  can  difpute  who  reads  the  writings  of  Mofes. 
Were  it  equally  plain  from  the  writings  of  the  evangelifts 
and  apoftles,  that  infants  were  baptized,  the  diipute 
would  be  at  an  end.  But  of  the  latter,  no  proof  can  be 
found  !  Who  then  can  wonder,  that  the  friends  of  in- 
fant memberfliip  fhould  not  be  willing  to  "  let  go  a 
certainty,  for  an  uncertainty." 

But  in  order  to  fupport  the  foregoing  hypothefis,  the' 
gofpel  church  alfo  muft  be  judaized  ;  that  is,  it  muft 
be  completely  incorporated  with  the  old  Jewilh  church, 
or  infant  baptifm,  after  all,  mufl:  languilh  for  want  of 
divine  inftitution  to  fupport  it.  Whether  fuch  an  at- 
tempt does  not  refemble  the  condudl  of  thofe  judaizing 
teachers,  whom  St.  Paul  in  his  epiftles  to  the  Galatians, 
Phihppians,  and  others  fo  feverely  reprehended,  ought 
ferioufly  to  be  confidered.  To  fome  it  has  this  afpecl:. 
Circumcifion  was  the  theme  on  which  they  perpetually 
dwelt.  And  certain  men,  fays  the  hiftorian,  ijuhich  came 
doiun  from  Judea,  (to  Antioch)  taught  the  brethren  and 
faid,  Except  ye  be  circumcifed  after  the  manner  of  Mofes,  ye 
cannot  be  faved.  Alfo,  there  rofe  up  certain  of  the  feci  of  the 
Pharifees  ivhich  believed ,  fifng.  That  it  ivai  needful  to  cir- 


C   »8    3 

cumcife  theniy  and  to  command  them  to  keep  the  law   of 
Mofes* 

That  our  Pxdobaptlft  brethren  confider  the  gofpel 
church  only  as  the  Jevvlfli  church  continued,  and  not 
as  commencing  under  the  minlfiry  of  Jefus  Chrift,  or 
his  immediate  forerunner,  h  clear  from  all  their  writ- 
ings. That  it  may  be  feen  that  we  ftate  the  fubje^l  fairly, 
we  fubjoin  the  following  quotations.  Mr»  P.  Ediuardf  : 
<«  The  firft  Gentiles,  of  whofe  callmg  we  read,  are  faid 
to  have  been  added  to  the  church  *,  but  there  was  no 
church  exifting  to  which  they  could  be  added  but  the 
ancient  Jetui/fj  churchy  of  which  all  the  apoftles  and  difr 
ciples  of  our  Lord  were  members."f  Mr.  5.  Worcejler  : 
*«  Though  a  new  and  brighter  difpenfation  was  intro- 
duced, yet  the  church  continued  thefaitie,  which  had  almoft 
two  thoufand  years  before  been  eftabliflied  by  the  cove- 
nant made  v/ith  Abraham  and  his  feed."  "  Circum- 
cilion  was  formerly  the  appointed  pre-requlfite  of  ad- 
miffion  to  the  church  of  Gody  baptilm  is  now  the  ap- 
pointed pre-requilite  of  admiflion  to  the  fame  church  "1^ 
Thefe  gentlemen  are  quoted  as  a  fpecimen  of  the  com- 
mon manner  in  which  they  ftate  thefubjedt,  rather  than 
to  prove  a  point  which  it  is  prefumed  no  one  will  deny. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  compare  tliefe  two  churches^ 
and  Ihew  fome  of  the  points  in  which  they  difagree. 

1.      They  differ  effentially  in  their  confiitutions. 

By  the  conftitution  of  the  Jewifh  church,  we  may  un- 
derftand  thofe  primary  laws  by  which  they  were  united 
and  diftinguiflied  as  an  ecclefiaftical  body.  Thefe 
laws  contain  a  declaration  of  the  rights  and  privileges, 
the  duties  and  obligations  of  all  the  members  •,  and  alfo 
the  qualifications  which  conftitute  the  right  of  mem- 
beriliip.  Qircumcifion  holds  the  firft  and  moft  im- 
portant place  in  this  fyftem.  This  formed  the  difcrim- 
inating  line  between  the  members  of  this  church  and 
all  others.  It  was  the  initiating  badge  of  memberfhip  \ 
for  no  male  of  the  {t^^  of  Abraham^  nor  apy  others, 

♦  Ads  XV.  I,  5. 

f  Candid  Reafons,  &c.  p.  54. 

\  Two  Dife.  p,  48,  53,  J4. 


C     S3     ] 

could  be   admitted  to    the  privileges  of   that  churck 
without  it. 

The  queftion  now  to  be   determined,  is,  whether  the 
qualifications  for   this  rite  were   precifely  the  fame,  or 
even  the  fame  in  fubftance,  as  thofe  required  in  order 
to  memberfliip  in  the   gofpel  church  ?    Abraham  was 
the   firft  that  adminiftered  circumciiion   under  the  for- 
mer difpenfation.      John,   i\\Q  forerufwer  of  Chrift,  was 
the  firft  who  adminiftered  baptifm  under   the   new  dif- 
penfation.    Abraham  circumcifed  Iftimael,  and   all  the 
men  of  his  houfe,  in  the  fclf-fame  day.     lihmael  was  at 
the  time  thirteen  years  old.     This  is  an  age  fufceptible 
of  religious  inftru(fiion,  and  when  its  influence   on  the 
moral  temper  can  be  fatisfivflorily  afcertained.     Nothing 
appears  in  the  whole  account  to  juftify  an  opinion,  that 
Iftimael  was  now  a  penitent  (whatever  he  miglit  be  after- 
wards)  and  from  that  conduiSV,  which  led  to  his  expul- 
lion  from  Abraham's  family,  we  have  much  reafon  to 
believe  the  contrary.*     Nor  is  there  any  m.ore  evidence 
that  the  men  of  Abraham's  houfe  were  penitents,  than 
that  lihmael  was.     Neither  can  v/e   find  any  evidence, 
that  the  inftitution  required  it  in  order  to  qualify  them 
for  circumciiion.     On   this  fubject,  fo   neceiTiry  to  fup- 
port  the  pofition,  that   the   Jewifli   and    the  Chriftian 
churches  are  the    fame,   the  fcriptures  preferve  a  pro- 
found filence  !  To  qualify  a  perfon  completely  for  cir- 
cumcifion,  nothing  more  was  required,  either  in  adults 
or  infants,  than  that  they  were   defcendants  from  Abra- 
ham, or  were  Jewifli  property,  having  been  bought  with 
money.     Can  any  man  v/ith  the  Bible  in  his  hand  con- 
fcientioufly  fay,  that  he   verily  believes   thefe  qualifica- 
tions the  fame  which  were  required  in  order  to  baptifm 
either  by  John  the  Baptift,  by  Jefus  Chrift,  or  by  the 
apoftles  ? 

As  if  exprefsly  defigned  to  convince  us  of  this  diftor- 
cnce  in  the  outfet,  the  harbinger  of  our  Saviour  who 
was  fent  to  introduce  his  new  difpenfation,  and  to  mani- 
feft  him  to  Ifrael  as  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taheth  awa^  the  fin 
of  the  worldi  has  made  the  v^ry  diftindlion  for  which  we 
plead.    But  luhen  hefaiu  many  of  the  Pharifees  and  SadJtwees 

*  Gen  xxi.  9. 


C     S4     ] 

(Krme  to  his  hnptifm^  he /aid  unto  thentyO  gett0fatmt  ^  vipc'rs^ 
iL'bo  hath  warfiid  you  to  flee  from  the  ivvath  to  covie  ?  Bring 
forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for  repentance  ;  and  thinh  not  to 
fay  withrfi yourfelves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our  Father  : 
fcr  I  fay  unto  you  y  God  is  able  of  thtfe  fcncSi  to  rafe  up  chil- 
dren nnto  Jitraham,*  Who  were  thefe  Phnrlfees  and 
Sadducees  ?  Were  they  heathens  ?  No  •,  they  wqvq 
members  of  the  Jewifli  church,  and  in  full  communion, 
for  aught  that  appears  to  the  contrary.  We  have  Abra- 
ham to  our  father.  This  was  the  very  gitiund  on  which 
their  memberfliip  in  that  church  refted,  and  which  had 
never  before  been  difputed.  But  John  demanded  qual- 
ifications of  a  much  higher  nature,  and  every  way  dif- 
ferent in  a  moral  view,  from  thofe  which  had  before 
been  allowed.  In  the  true  fpirit  of  a  gofpel  teacher, 
he  required  the  genuine  fruits  of  repentance.  And 
thofe  who  did  not  bring  forth  thefe  fruits,  and  fubmit 
to  this  new  inftitution,  Chrift  himfelf  has  denounced, 
as  reje5ling  the  counsel  of  God  o.gainfl  themfelvesy  in  not 
being  baptized  of  him.  ^ 

The  different  qualifications  required  by  the  initiating 
inftitutes  of  the  two  churches,  clearly  defignate  the  dif- 
ferent charafler  of  the  members.  To  conftitute  a  per- 
fon  a  complete  member  of  the  Jewifn  church,  required 
nothing  more  than  to  be  bought  with  Jewifh  nioney, 
or  born  of  Jewifli  parents,  and  to  be  circumcifed.  To 
conftitute  a  perfon  a  proper  membercf  the  gofpel  church, 
he  mufi:  indeed  be  bought  with  a  price  !  but  not  ivith fi- 
ver and  gold,  and  fuch  corruptible  things^  but  with  the  prC" 
cious  blood  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  of  a  lamb  ivithut  blem^ 
ifh  !  And  whether  born  of  JewiOi  parents  or  others, 
is  of  no  confequence  ;  he  niufl  be  born  a  gain  ^  not  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  ivill  of  the  ftjh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  kit  of 
God.X  He  mull:  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit ,  or  he 
can  never  be  confidered  as  duly  qualified  to  etiter  the 
gofpel  kingdom,  or  church.  This  plain  ftatement  inevi- 
tably brings  the  mind  to  this  conclufion  ;  That  unlefs  to 
be  bought  with  money  to  be  a  Jtwi/l)  fervant^  and  to  be 
bought  with  the  precious  bipod  of  Chrift  to  be  his  free 
men,  are  prccifely  the  fame  things  ;  and  to  be  born  of 

*-M3tt.  iii.  7 — 9,  t  Luke  vil  30.  ^  JoJm  i   13,  &«. 


[     55     ] 

Jewlfli  parents,  according  to  the  fiefh,  and  to  be  hcrh 
«f  God  by  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  have  the 
fame  meaning  ;  then  the  moral  charaOer  of  the  mem- 
bers, as  required  by  the  two  inftitutes,  muft  be  ac- 
knowledged to  be  totally  different. 

We  do  not  think  ouriblves  bound  to  prove,  that 
there  is  no  limilarity,  mo  points  of  agreement  between 
the  two  churches  ;  it  Is  fufficient  to  our  purpofe  to 
fliow,  that  they  differ  fo  effentially  that  they  cannot 
be  conlidered  as  one  and  the  fame.  To  (how  the  dif- 
ference between  two  men,  it  would  not  be  neceffary  to 
proYe,  that  one  walked  on  two  legs,  and  the  other  upon 
four  :  although  th^y  might  bear  a  confiderable  refem- 
biance  to  each  other,  yet  there  would  be  vifible  points 
of  dia-erence,  fufiicwnt  to  fliow  that  they  were  not  one. 

2.  Qdr  fecond  argument  is  taken  from  the  actual 
difference  in  the  vifible  form  of  the  two  churche*. 
The  Jewirih  church,  in  every  l>age  of  it,  has  been  na- 
tional. The  gofpel  church  is  ielected  and  particular. 
The  former  in  its  conftitution  had  a  diredl  tendency  to 
form  and  eftablifh  a  mixed  church  ;  to  blend  believers 
and  unbelievers,  faints  and  finners,  the  virtuous  and 
iMcious  together  in  one  general  com.munion  ;  without 
containing  in  iifelf  the  means  of  feparating  the  mor- 
ally clean  from  the  unclean. 

The  plan  of  the  gofpel  church  is  totally  different. 
This  is  compofed  of  none  but  profiling  believers.  A 
people  d^o/en,  and  cn//ed  out  from  the  world.  Not  dif- 
tinguifl^ed  indeed  by  family  defcent,  or  any  mark  in  the 
JleJJj  ;  but  by  having  the  truth  erigraved  upon  their  hearts 
by  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God,  by  which  means  they  be- 
come living  epijilesy  known  and  read  of  all  men. 

Mr.  Edwards  has  denied  that  the  Jewilh  church  was 
national  during  the  firft  three  or  four  centuries  from  its 
commencement.  But  v/hat  reafon  does  he  affign  for 
it  ?  Why  becaufe  "  it  had  no  levitical  prieffhood,  no 
inftitution  of  tythes,  &c,"  (p.  104..)  The  reader  will 
remember  that  we  are  not  difputing  about  the  inftitu- 
tion  of  th-e  priefthood  nor  tythes,  but  about  member- 
fhip.  If  the  Jewifli  nation  did  not  commence  its  ex- 
Utence  in  the  family  of  Abraliara  as  really  as  the  Jewilh 


[     38     ] 

church,  we  acknowledge  our  argument  will  be  weak- 
ened ;  but  if  it  did,  it  will  not  be  in  the  power  of  foph- 
iflry  to  overthrow  it. 

During  the  above  period,  this  nation  and  church 
w^ere  both  in  their  infancy,  and  both  progrefled  in  the 
fame  ratio.  The  queftion  then  does  not  depend  on 
the  numbers  which  compofed  either  the  nation,  or 
church,  but  whether  the  one  was  co-exiftent  and  co- 
extenfive  with  the  other  ?  Can  this  be  denied  in  any 
ftate  of  that  nation  ?  Does  not  the  i)ible  eftablifh  the 
fa<rt  in  the  cleareft  manner  ?  To  fuppofe  that  this 
church  was  not  national  merely  becaufe  it  had  no  "  in- 
ftituted  priefthood  or  tythes,"  would  be  equally  as 
abfurd  as  to  fuppofe,  that  the  nation  did  not  exift,  until 
it  exiiled  in  its  kingly  form  in  the  days  of  Saul.  In  fadl, 
if  the  Jewlfh  church  did  not  exift  in  its  national  form 
until  the  days  of  Mofes,  it  did  not  exift  in  any  regular 
viiible  form  whatever.  View  it  in  every  poffible  light, 
from  the  eftablilhment  of  circumcifion,  until  the  gofpel 
church  fucceeded  it,  and  you  will  find  that  it  com- 
prifed  the  whole  body  of  the  Hebrew  or  Jev/ifli  nation. 
\Ve  know  of  nothing  which  can  denominate  a  church 
as  being  national,  but  its  comprifing  the  nation  at  large, 
and  its  religious  rites  enforced  by  national  authority. 
Such  we  underftand  the  Jewifli  to  have  been. 

To  determine  whether  the  gofpel  church  does  not 
eflentially  differ  in  its  vifible  form  from  the  preceding, 
we  fliall  confult  only  the  New  Teftament.  It  matters 
not  to  us  what  forms  have  been  eftablifhed  at  Rome  or 
Conftantinople,  at  Geneva  or  in  Great  Britain,  The 
New  Teftament  alone  muft  determine  us  in  our  prefent 
inquiries.  Here  nothing  can  be  found  which  looks  like 
a  national  church.  The  gofpel,  though  firft  fent  to  the 
Jews,  was  far  from  being  generally  received.  Chrift  came 
unto  his  own,  i.  e.  to  his  own  nation,  and  his  own  received 
him  not  :  but  as  many  as  received  him)  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  fons  of  God  ;  even  to  them  that  believe 
on  his  name.  Of  thefe  JeWifh  believers  the  gofpel 
church  was  compofed  ;  and  to  thefe  the  converts  from 
among  the  Gentiles  were  added.  The  great  body  of  the 
Jewiih  church,  notwithftanding  the  gofpel  was  preached 


C     37     ] 

among  them  attended  with  miracles,  adhered  to  their 
old  national  religion,  and  perfecuted  Jefus  of  Nazareth 
as  an  impofior.  In  this  particular,  I  am  happy  enough 
for  once  to  agree  with  Mr.  Edwards  :  fpeaking  of  this 
people  he  fays,  "  As  to  their  character,  it  is  certain 
that,  a  few  only  excepted,  they  were  upon  the  whole, 
the  DEADLY  ENEMIES  of  Chrfft  and  his  do(Strine."  (o. 
62.) 

It  has  never  yet  been  proved,  nor  do  we  believe  it 
can  be  fairly  inferred,  from  any  thing  recorded  in  the 
New  Teftament,  that  ever  a  fmgle  perfon  was  confid- 
cred  as  a  member  of  the  Chriiiian  church,  who  did  not 
profefs  faith  in  Jefus  Chrift.  The  account  given  us  in 
the  fecond  chapter  of  Adls  is  plain,  and  eafy  to  be  un- 
derftood.  The  gofpe!  was  faithfully  preached  by  Peter  ; 
the  confciences  of  his  hearers  were  folenmly  addrefled  ; 
the  Holy  Ghoft  accompanied  the  word  in  fuch  a  man- 
ner, that  it  is  faid.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word 
were  baptized  ;  and  the  fame  day  there  ivere  added  unto  them 
about  three  thou fatid f. ids.  No  more  were  baptized,  nor 
were  any  added  to  the  church  but  fuch  as  gladly  re- 
ceived tiie  word.  A  careful  attention  to  the  remaining 
part  of  this  chapter  will  convince  any  one,  that  thefe 
perfons  were  in  general  real  believers.  The  account 
clofes  with  thefe  remarkable  words  ;  And  the  Lord 
added  to  the  church  daily,  such  as  should  be  saved. 
From  this  laft  remark  there  is  abundant  evidence,  that 
in  a  judgment  of  charily,  they  were  true  believers. 
Probably  a  large  proportion  of  the  three  thoufands 
were  heads  of  families  ;  yet  there  is  no  mention  made 
of  their  children  or  tervants  being  baptized,  according 
to  the  right  of  member  i^iip  for  which  our  brethren  plead. 

The  particular  mode  of  addrels  adopted  by  St.  Paul 
to  the  feveral  churches  to  which  he  wrote,  naturally 
leads  to  the  conelufion,  that  they  were  compofed  only 
of  vifible  faints,  or  fuch  as  profeiTed  to  believe  in,  and 
love  Chrift.  His  language  is,  2#  nil  that  be  in  Rome^ 
BtioviD  OF  God,  called  to  be  saints,  ^r/rr^  fr  pr^ 
mud peaci  from  God  the  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrijf, 
Unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them  that 
^e  SANCTIFIED  Mi    Christ    Jesvsi  called  to   be 


I     »8     ] 

SAINTS.*     The  addreffes  in  the  other  epifVles  are  very 
fimilar. 

Can  any  man  in  his  fober  fenfes  fay,  that  he  verily 
believes  that  thefe  churches  were  made  up  of  all  de- 
fcriptions  of  character,  like  the  old  Jewilh  church  ?  We 
very  much  doubt  it.  The  convidion  muft  be  irrefifti- 
ble  that  they  were  compofed  of  none  but  pr of ejfed  faints. 
We  fpeak  with  this  caution,  becaufe  that  human  dif- 
eernmenc  is  not  always  fufficient  to  dete<Sl:  hypocrify. 
Thofe  who  take  the  greateft  heed  hew  they  bu'ild^  may  at 
times  be  deceived,  as  Philip  was  with  Simon.  He  ap- 
peared no  doubt  to  the  evangelii^  to  be  favingly 
wrought  upon  ;  but  afterwards  manifefted,  that  he  lad 
neither  lot  nor  part  in  the  matter.  This  is  after  all  a  very 
different  thing  from  admitting  perfons  without  any 
profeflion,  and  of  whom  charity  itfelf  cannot  gatlver  a 
kope,  that  they  ever  knew  any  thing  experimentally 
about  religion. 

The  true  gofpel  church  has  never  been  national  fiiice 
hs  commencement,  and  probably  never  will  be  until  th« 
Millenium,  whatever  it  may  then. 

It  is  thought  probable  that  there  is  as  large  a  propor- 
tion of  true  Chriftians  in  thefe  United  States,  as  there 
has  ever  been  in  any  nation  including  the  fame  number 
of  inhabitants)  fince  the  Ghriftian  era.  But  is  there  ^ 
ferl^us  perfon  of  afiy  denomination  in  this  land  who 
would  dare  to  fay,  that  in  his  opinion  this  whole  nation* 
was,  according  to  the  rules  exhibited  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment,  properly  qualified  for  memberlhip  in  the  Chrif- 
tian  church  ?  We  prefume  the  contrary.  The  general 
practice  of 'all  the  churches  (however  hx  their  dif- 
eipline  msiy  be)  goes  to  efl:abli(h  our  fentiment. 

That  the  Jewiih  and  Chriftian  churches  are  not  the 
feme,  may  be  argued,  thirdly,  from  leverai  pafTages  of 
fcripture  which  reprefent  the  gofpel  church  as  com- 
mencing at  a  different  period,  as  well  as  exifting  in  » 
different  form  from  the  ancient  church. 

In  explaining  the  image  which  Nebuciiadnezza^ 
faw  in  his  dream,  Daniel  foretold,  that  four  greal! 
Aonarcliies  iliouldfucceed  each  other,  andthsri;  thelaft' 

•  Rom.  i.   7.  I  Cor  i.  4. 


[St    3 

fiould  be  divided  into  ten  kingdoms,  &c.  In  the  days 
Mf  thefe  kings ^  faith  \\Q^J}jall  the  God  of  heaven  Jet  up  a 
kingdom  ivhich  Jhall  never  bedeJ}royed\  and  the  kingdom  Jhall 
not  be  left  to  other  people ^  but  it  Jlmll  hreak  in  pieces  and  con" 
fume  all  thefe  kingdoms^  and  it  jhall fl  and  for  ever,* 

"This  defcription,  faith  Bifhop  Newton,  can  with  pro- 
priety only  be  underftood,  as  the  ancients  underftood  it, 
of  the  kingdom  of  Chrift.  ^nd  in  the  days  of  thefe  kings, 
that  is,  in  the  days  of  fome  of  them.  And  it  muft  be 
during  the  days  of  the  laft"  of  them  ;  becaufe  they  are 
reckoned  y^z/r  in  fuccefllon,  and  confequently  this  muft 
be  the  fifth  kingdom.  Accordingly  the  kingdom  of 
Chrift  was  fet  up  during  the  days  of  the  laft  of  thefe 
kingdoms,  that  is,  the  Roman.  Theflone  was  totally 
a  different  thing  from  the  image^  and  the  kingdom  of 
Chrift  is  totally  different  from  the  kingdoms  of  this 
world.  Theflone  *ivas  cut  cut  of  the  mountain  nvithotit 
hands,  as  our  heavenly  body  is  faid  to  be  a  building  of 
God,  an  houfe  not  made  nt'ith  hands,  that  is,  fpiritual,  as 
the  phrafe  is  ufed  in  other  places.  I'his  the  fathers 
generally  apply  to  Chrift  himfelf,  who  was  miraculoufly 
born  of  a  virgin  ;  witho'jt  the  concurrence  of  a  man  : 
but  it  iliould  rather  be  underftood  of  the  kingdom  of 
Chrift,  which  was  formed  out  of  the  Roman  empire, 
not  by  number  of  hands,  or  ftrength  of  armies  -,  but 
without  human  means,  and  the  virtue  of  fecond  caufes. 
This  kingdom  was  fet  up  by  the  God  of  heaven  ;  and 
#rom  hence  the  phrafe  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven^  caijie  to 
fignify  the  kingdom  of  the  Mefliah.  It  was  fo  ufed 
and  underftood  by  the  Jews,  and  fo  it  is  applied  by 
our  Saviour  in  the  New  Teftament.  Other  kingdoms 
were  raifed  by  human  ambition  and  worldly  pov^er  j 
but  this  was  the  work,  not  of  man  but  of  God.  This 
was  truly,  as  it  is  called  the  kingdom  ef  heaven,  A  king- 
dom not  of  this  'world  ,•  its  laws,  its  powers  were  all 
divine."  "  As  we  may  preftime  to  fay,  that  this  is  the 
only  true  and  genuine  interpretation  of  this  paiTage, 
fo  likewife  it  is  the  moft  confonant  to  the  fcnfe  of  atl 
ancient  writers,  both  Jews  and  Chriftians."f 

♦  D»n  ii.  44.  I  Dift  4»q  ;hc  Prephcciw,  p.  243,  24  4. 


i:  *•  ] 

We  know  of  no  Chriftlan  expofitor  who  decs  net 
«on(ider  this  as  a  predidion  of  the  gofpel  church.  But 
if  this  church  had  been  fet  up  more  than  thirteen  hun- 
dred years  before,  why  Ihould  Daniel  fpeak  of  it  as  an- 
event  ftill  future.  That  we  might  not  be  liable  to  mif- 
tiike,  he  foretold  the  period  when  it  ibould  take  place. 
hi  the  days  of  tkefe  kings  ;  or  during  the  continuance  of 
one  of  them,  the  Roman  monarchy,  Chrift  fhould 
make  his  appearance,  and  fet  up  his  gofpel  kingdom. 

Confcrmably  to  this  fentiment,  we  find  our  bleffed 
Lord  often  fpeaking  of  the  gofpel  difpenfation  under 
tbe  metaphor  of  a  kingdom.  Htf  ufes  the  fame  lan- 
guage v/ith  refpe<ri  to  his  church.  When  he  faid  to 
tbe  Jews,  If  1  ccift  out  devils  by  the  Spirit  of  God^  then  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you  ;*  here  he  evidently 
meant  the  gofpel  difpenfation. 

We  think  the  fame  was  meant  in  that  folemn  threat- 
en irg  denounced  againft  the  Jews  for  their  unbelief,  in 
the  following  words  j  Therefore  fay  I  unto  youy  that  the 
lif/gdotn  of  Godfhail  be  taken  from  youy  and  given  to  a 
n:ition  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof  \  By  which  he 
evidently  meant  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  with  all  its 
privileges  and  blefiings  :  not  the  old  Jewiih  difpenfa- 
tion and  the  rites  belonging  to  that.  No  \  thefe,  in 
the  fenfe  of  our  Saviour,  were  neither  taken  from  them, 
nor  given  to  any  others.  The  Jews  ftill  retain  many 
of  them,  and  in  their  prefent  iituation  exhibit  much 
the  fame  appearance  of  vifibility  as  a  church,  as  they 
did  during  the  firfl  four  hundred  years,  before  their 
deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage.  Circumcifion  was 
the  principal  rite  by  vvh]ch  they  were  then  diftinguirtied 
from  other  nations  :  They  are  to  this  day  diftinguilhed 
by  the  fame. 

Our  Lord,  upon  a  different  occafion,  replied  to 
the  fame  cavijling  Jews,  Virily  I  ftty  unto  you^  that  the 
publicans  and  the  harlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of  God  before 
you.  For  John  came  Uf.io  you  in  the  'way  of  righteoujrufsy 
and  ye  believed  him  not  ;  but  the  publicans  and  the  harlots 
BELIEVED  him»  And y^^  ivhtn  ye  had feen  it^  'S.hVEiiT'E-D 
mt  afterward  that  ye  might  BELIEVE  him.\  As  the  pharifees 

Mi%l  lii.  %Z         t  M-^"    xxi.  43-         ^Matt.  xxxi  3'>3*- 


are  here  charged  wlih  impenitence  and  iinbelie4  we 
may  fuppofe  that  the  publicans  and  harlots  who  are 
faid  to  go  into  the  hingdcm  of  God,  were  fuch  as  under  the 
niiniftry  of  John  were  brought  to  true  repentance,  to 
believe  on  the  MefTiah  whom  lie  declared  to  be  at  hv.nd, 
and  to  be  baptized  of  him.  If  the  kingdom  of  God, 
or  gofpel  church,  and  the  Jewifli  church  were  the 
fame,  then  thefe  puHuans  and  harlots^  before  they  em- 
braced John's  do<S^rine,  yea>  and  the  pharifees  too,  were 
all  in  the  kingdom  of  God  !  for  they  undoubtedly  aU 
belonged  to  the  Jewifh  church- 

The  fcribes  and  pharifees  fat  in  ^Tofes'  feat,  and 
were  perfons  of  the  firft  eminence  in  the  Jewifh  church  ; 
but  Jefus  faid  to  his  difciples,  Except  your  rlghteoufncfs 
exceed  the  right  ecu fntfs  of  the  fcribes  and  pharfees^ye  fJmll  in 
no  cafe  entlr  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.* 

V/hether  the  kingdom  of  grace,  or  the  kingdom  of 
glory  be  intended  in  this  palTage,  this  much  is  evident, 
that  being  members  of  the  Jewifh  church,  did  not 
qualify  for  either. 

This  argument  will  be  further  illufbrated  and  ftrength- 
ened  by  the  words  of  our  fufFering  Redeemer,  when  in- 
terrogated by  Pilate.  Thine  oivn  nation^  faid  he,  and  the 
chief  prifis  htive  delivered  thee  unto  tne.  What  htifl  thou 
done  ?  Jefus  anfivered,  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
"WORLD  !  f  my  kingdotn  ivtre  of  this  luor/d,  then  would  fny 
fervants  fight y  that  Ifhould  not  be  deUvtred  to  the  Jeivs^ 
By  this  declaration  Jefus  has  given  an  indelible  charac- 
ter to  his  church  ;  and  which  muft  frrever  diftinguifU 
it  from  the  Jewifh  church.  The  latter  was  not  only 
organized  as  a  body  politic,  but  its  men  of  war  were 
marflialled,  and  frequently  led  to  the  fight  by  mil- 
itary chieftains. 

It  muft  be  evident  to  every  candid  mind  that  the 
Jewith  church,  in  every  ftage  of  it,  notwithftanding  it 
contained  fome  true  believers,  was  principally  of  this 
world.  This  mufl  be  the  cafe  with  every  other  church, 
formed  ftridtly  upon  the  principles  of  irifant  member- 
fhip,  whether  they  are  admitted  by  circumcifion  or 
kaptifm.     We  appeal  to  the  common  fenfe  of  Chrif- 

•  Matt.  V,  no.  I  John  xviii.  IS'>  36. 

d2 


L     42     ] 

tlans,  whether,  to  admit  the  hypothefis  laid  down  br 
the  Psedobaptifts,  that  all  the  children  of  believers  have 
a  right  to  memberftiip  in  the  gofpel  church,  would  not, 
if  put  in  pra<Slice,  make  fuch  as  are  of  the  world,  a  vaft 
majority  in  moft  churches  ?  Are  not  the  baptized,  in 
moft  Psdobaptift  congregations^  to  thofe  who  aiSluallj 
take  upon  themfelves  a  voluntaiT"  profeffion  of  religion 
and  give  evidence  that  they  are  real  Chriftians,  as  two  to 
one  ?  Probably  a  much  greater  majority.  If  thefe  ar« 
all  included  in  the  ChrifLian  church,  (and  they  muft  be,, 
or  their  argument  is  loft)  can  it  be  faid,  that  fuch  a 
church  is  not  of  this  world  ?  We  might  with  as  much 
propriety  fay,  that  a  town-meeting  was  not  of  this 
world,  becaufe  a  number  of  the  qualified  voters  were 
Chriftians.  For  in  the  latter  there  would  probably  be 
about  the  fame  proportion  of  Chriftians,  as  in  the 
former. 

It  would  be  an  infult  upon  the  underftanding  of  men, 
to  attempt  to  maintain  the  two  oppoftte  points,  that 
new-born  infants  nauft  be  admitted  to  memberftiip  in 
the  Chriftian  church,  and  that  the  church  was  never- 
thelefs  not  of  this  woridy  but  a  fpiritual  body.  A  man 
who  could  believe  this,  ^vould  have  but  little  difBculty 
in  believing  tranfuhjlantiatiouy  or  any  other  abfurdity. 

No  man  who  examines  witl^  candour  the  hiftor.y  of 
the  Jewifli  church  from  the  days  of  Abraham,  till  tlxe 
deftrucTtion  of  their  nation  and  temple  by  Vefpafian,  but 
what  muft  conclude,  that  the  true  believers  at  any  pe- 
riod would  have  been,  when  compared  vvith  the  whole 
nation,  only  a  Jmnll  minoriiy  !  a  remnant  according  to  ihr 
election  of  grace.  They  were  fo  few,  and  fo  unknown  in 
the  time  cf  Elijah,  that  he  thought  he  was  left  alone. 
And  notwithftanding  the  anfwer  of  God  happily  con- 
vinced him  of  his  miftake,  yet  the  number  mentioned 
were  few  compared  with  the  thou fands  of  Ifrael  and 
Judah. 

Can  we  ferioufly  fuppofe  that  it  was  the  intention  of 
Jefus  Chrift  to  continue  this  church  in  its  then  viftbl* 
form,  or  to  fet  up  another  like  it  }  Does  the  New  Tef- 
lament  lead  to  fuch  a  conclufion  ?  Does  not  the  lan- 
guage of  Chrift  and  his  apoftles  confirm  exactly  tije 


C     43     3 

t>ppofitc  ?  Tc"  are  the  light  cf  the  ivcrldi  faid  Jefus  to  Ms 
little  church.  A  city  that  is  Jet  on  an  lull  c.mnot  be  hidJ* 
]f  ye  were  of  the  world,  the  imrld  iiKuld  love  his  cum  ;  hut 
becaufe  ye  are  not  cf  the  ivorld,  but  I  have  chofen  you  out  of 
the  ivorldy  therefore  the  lucrld  hateth  you.-\  This  is  the 
manner  in  which  our  blefTed  Lord  defigjiated  his  dif- 
ciples.  The  particular  manner  in  which  they  were 
brought  to  an  intereft  in  the  blefllngs  of  this  kingdom, 
is  thus  expreffed  by  the  apoftle  to  the  Coloffians : 
Who  hath  delivered  us  from  the  power  of  darhnefs,  and 
hath  tranflated  us  into  the  kingdom  of  his  dear  ^on,\  Every 
perfon  who  claims  the  privilege  of  the  Chriftian  name, 
ought  to  be  able  to  give  the  lame  renfon  of  his  hope. 
Such  perfons  may  fay  with  the  apoftle,  Wherefore  lue  re- 
eeiving  a  kitigdt>m  luhich  cannot  he  mo'ved,  Itt  us  have  graee, 
or  grant  us  grac^,  luhtrtby  ive  may  ferve  God  acceplablw 
None  but  fuch  as  experience  renewing  grace,  pofiefs 
any  one  of  thefe  qualifications.  No  others  are  Hghts  in 
the  religious  world.  No  others  have  been  tranflated 
from  the  darknefs  cf  the  world  and  lin  into  the  kingdom 
of  God's  dear  Son.  No  others  have  received  this  im- 
Bioveable  kingdom. 

When  the  Saviour  afked  his  difciples  their  opinion 
toncerning  hinifelf,  Peter  anfwered,  Thou  art  the  Lkrift^ 
the  Son  of  the  living  God  !  And  J  ejus  affivered  and  faid 
unto  him,  BUJfed  art  thou  Simon  Barjona  j  for  flfjj  and 
blood  hath  'not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  ivhich  is 
in  heaven.  And  I  fay  -unto  ihee^  thau  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  roch  'will  .1.  build  my  church  ;  and  the  gates  of  hell  fiall 
not  prevail. agaiffl  if.  The  J.ewilh  church  did  not  be- 
lieve that  Jelus  Chrift  was  the  Son  of  God.  'Ihey  con- 
fideredand  treated  him  as  an  impoftor.  They  charg- 
ed him  with  blafphemy,  and  faid,  he  being  a  man  tiioik 
himfelf  Go<i.  But  every  truly  enlightened  Chriftian 
can  fubfcribe  with  Peter,  Thou  art  the  Chrift,  the  Son 
of  the  living  God.  The  rulers  of  the  Jewifh  church 
blafphemoully  replied  to  hitn,  5^^  %venot  loell  that  thouant 
a  Samaritan,  and  hafla  devil  ?  Ti^s  was  the  infulttng  lan- 
guage -of  the  leaders  of  tliat  very  church,  which  we  3J« 

*  Jifcl».  V.  1,4.  I  John  XT.  19,         \  -Col .\\.,  y. 


[     44.     ] 

told  was  the  gofpel  church,  aPxd  was  continued  without 
any  *<  efTential  alteration."* 

Out  fourth  and  laft  argument  to  prove  that  the  gofpel 
church  is  totally  dirtindl  from,  and  independent  of,  the 
Jewifh,  (hall  be  drawn  from  fafts  recorded  in  the  New 
Teftament.     "  Fa6ls  are  flubborn  things." 

If  (as  the  advocates  for  infant  bsptifm"^  aiTert)  the 
gofpel  cliurch  did  incorporate  with  the  old  Jewifh 
church,  we  may  expe6l  fuch  an  account  of  it  in  the 
writings  of  the  evangelifts  and  apoftles,  as  to  put  the 
matter  out  of  difpute.  Should  we  find  them  entirely 
filent  on  a  fubjecl  of  fo  much  moment,  its  truth  might 
very  juftly  be  called  in  queftion.  But  if,  inftead  of  be- 
ing iilent,  we  find  them  to  have  recorded  fadis  which 
irrefiAibly  prove  the  contrary,  we  fliould  fuppofe  Ikep- 
ticiim  itielf  would  ceafe  to  doubt.  Let  us  proceed  to 
examine  the  proof.  To  the  law  and  to  the  tefimony^  as 
the  final  umpire,  we  cheerfully  repair,  and  pledge  our- 
feives   to   abide  the  decifion. 

If  our  minds  are  open  and  candid,  we  {l:iall  find  the 
narrative  plain  and  fimple  ;  the  facfls  fo  abundant,  and 
fo  varioufiy  interfperfed,  that  we  cannot  eafily  miftake 
them.  In  order  to  trace  them  with  pr^ifion,  we  muft 
travel  back  to  the  commencement  of  this  new  difpenfa- 
tion. 

Chriftian  reader,  if  your  Bible  be  at  hand,  turn  to 
the  third  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  read,  and  examine 
it  candidly  ;  or  will  you  permit  me  to  repeat  a  few 
fentences_,  and  make  fome  remarks  upon  them  ?  In 
thofe  days  came  Jchn  the  Baptijly  preaching  in  the  ivi/der- 
tiefs  of  Judea.  Who  was  this  John  the  Baptift  }  He 
was  the  perfon  of  whom  Ifaiah  fpake  in  prophecy. 
The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  ivildernefs.  Prepare  ye  the 
ivoy  of  the  Lordy  make  his  paths  Jlraight.  Did  John  de- 
rive his  authority  to  preach  and  baptize  from  the  Jew- 
ifh church  ?  Moft  certainly  he  did  not.  For  it  appears 
that  he  had  been  in  the  deferis  from  early  life  until  the 
day  of  his  fheiving  unto  Ifrael.\  How  came  he  then  by 
his  authority  ?  The  evangelift  John  fhall  anfwer  : 
There  ivas  a  man  SENT  FROM  GoD  ivhofe  name  was  jfohn. 
The   Jewifh  church  fent  a  deputation  of  priefts  and 

*  YmI.  p.  EdwariJs,  p.  X07.  \  Lvkc  i.  80. 


I     45     ] 

Levites  ro  him  to  inquire  who  he  was  ;  whether  he 
were  the  MefTiah  ?  if  not,  why  he  baptized  ?*  By 
which  it  appears  that  he  did  not  ftand  in  connexion 
with  that  church,  nor  z£t  under  its  authority.  It  will 
be  here  recollciSted  how  completely  Chrift  confounded 
the  leaders  of  that  church  by  this  fimple  queftion. 
T/jf  bapiifm  of  Johrty  faid  he,  nvhence  ivas  it  ?  from  heavtti 
9rof  inen?-\  The  chief  prieft  was  among  the  party  ;  they 
mail  therefere  certainly  have  known  if  John  had  been 
inducSled  into  the  prieft's  office  by  them  ;  or  had  in  any 
way  received  his  authority  from  them  There  can  be 
no  imsgrnable  reafon  afligned  for  their  concealing  it,  if 
this  had  been  tlie  cafe.  Could  they  with  propriety  have 
aiTerted  the  fa(5t,  it  would  have  relieved  them  from 
their  prefent  embarraflinent.  If  John  did  not  derive 
his  authority  from  the  officers  of  the  Jewifli  church, 
(the  only  proper  medium  through  which  it  could  pafs) 
he  mud:  have  a£ted  independently  of  them. 

We  alk  again,  did  JoIhi  preach  the  fame  doctrine 
which  the  leaders  of  this  church  did  ?  It  is  manifeft 
he  did  not  :  for  they  taught  for  doBrvie  the  command- 
merits  of  meuy  Chrlll  himfelf  being  juJge.  But  John 
preached  the  true  gofpel  of  the  kingdom.  He  pointed 
his  hearers  to  the  Saviour,  as  the  Lnmh  of  God  ivho 
taketh  aicay  the  fin  of  the  iv^r/dy  and  exhtrted  the  people 
to  repent  and  believe  on  him.  Such  as  received  his 
dod^rine,  and  confefled  their  litis,  he  baptized  in 
Jordan. 

Was  there  any  inflitution,  or  even  cuftom  in  the 
Jewilh  church,  which  required  John  to  baptize  his  con- 
verts in  Jordan  .'*  None  has  ever  yet  been  produced.  Al- 
though there  were  divers  ivnfjif.gs  appointed  in  the 
ritual  of  Mofes,  and  others  added  by  the  fuperl'titious 
Pharifees  *,  yet  they  all  differed  widely  from*  John's 
baptifm,  both  in  manner  and  defign. 

Towards  the  clofe  of  this  chapter,  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing account  of  our  Savii)ur.  Then  comdh  Jefur 
from  GaiJee  to  Jordan  unto  Johti^  to  be  baptiz-'d  of  him. 
But  John  forbade  him^  f.y'.ng^  1  have  n-.^ed  to  he  baptized  of 
thee,  and  comejl   thou  to  me  ?    And  Jfus  anjivcring^  faid 

*  Jol:a  L  f  Matt.  xx\.  j<r. 


[     *6     ] 

wito  hiitiy  ^Jfer  it  to  be  fo  now  ;  for  thus  it  becometh  us  f 
fulfil  all  righieoufnefu  Then  hi  fuffered  him.  And  Jefus^ 
xvhen  he  tuas  baptized,  WEjNT  UP  straightway  out  of 
THE  WATER.  Reader  !  lay  your  hand  upon  your 
he^rt,  and  alk  yourfelf,  in  the  fear  of  God,  if  you  can 
pofilbly  beUeve  that  either  John  or  Jefus  in  the  whole 
of  the  tranfaccions  related  in  this  chapter,  had  any  thing 
to  do  with  the  Jewifli  church,  or  their  leaders  ?  In 
fpite  of  all  your  prejudices,  is  there  not  a  monitor 
within  that  tells  you,  they  had  not  ? 

Much  pains  has  been  taken  to  prove  that  when  Chrift 
faid,  thus  it  bccotneth  us  to  fulfil  all  right  eon fuefs,  his 
meaning  was,  that  it  was  neceflary  for  him  to  be  bapti- 
zed by  John  in  Jordan,  to  fulfil  a  law  which  required 
the  fons  of  Aaron,  when  entering  into  the  priefl's  office, 
to  be  waflied  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle.*  What  a 
happy  knack  fome  men  have,  in reafoning from  analogy? 
But  there  is  one  unlucky  circumftance  attending  this 
argument,  vxA  which  wholly  riyns  it.  That  is,  that  by 
the  fame  law  which  required  the  above  wafhing  at  thje 
door  of  the  tabernacle,  Jcfus  Chrift  could  not  be  a 
pried  of  tliat  difpenfation  ^  as  he  was  neither  of  the 
ions  of  Aaron,  nor  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  j  but  of  the  tribg 
pf  Judah,  of  which  tribe  Mofes  fpake  nothing  concerning 
priefihood. 

If  we  look  into  the  next  chapter,  we  fhall  find  th« 
manner  in  which  Chrift  proceeded  in  gathering  th« 
New  Teftament  church.  At  the  18th  verfe  it  is  faid  *, 
And  "Jefus  luallung  by  the  fsa  of  Galilee,  f aw  two  brethren, 
$imon  called  Peter,  and  Andrew  his  brother,  cafling  a  net 
into  the  fea,for  they  nvere  fifbers.  And  he  faith  unto  them. 
Follow  me,  and  I  will  make  you  fi/hers  cf  men*  And  they 
Jlraightway  left  their  nets  and  followed  him.f  And  when 
be  had  gone  a  little  farther  thence,  he  fiw  James  the  fm  of 
'Zebedee,  and  John  his  brother^  who  alfo  were  in  ihefhip 
mending  their  nets  ;  and  fraightway  he  called  thtm,  and 
they  left  their  father  Zcbedee  in  thejhip  with  the  hired  fer-o 
vants,  and  went  after  hlm.X  Again,  the  next  day  after, 
Johnjlood,  and  twg  of  his  difciples,   and  locking  upcn  Jeftttf 

*  Vid.  Meffrs  Fifli  and  Crane,  and  ethers. 
t  Matu  iy.  i8 — 2a.  \  Ularki.  ij>,  se. 


L     4*7     3 

#j  he  lOftlkedf  hf  faith i  Behold  the  Lnmh  of  God  !  And  thi 
two  d'lfciples  heard  himfpeak,  and  they  foiioived  Jefus.^ 

And  a  certain  fcrihe  came  avd  faid  unto  him^  Alafler^  1 
teili follow  thee  nvhitherfoevet  thou  pefl  ;  and  amther  of 
his  d'lfciples  faid  unto  him.  Lord,  fujfrr  ?  e  firfl  to  go  and 
hury  my  father.  But  Jefus  faid  unto  hiin,  Follow  tr.e^  and 
let  the  dead  hury  their  dead  f  And  as  Jefus  pa  fed  forth 
from  thence,  he  faw  a  man  named  Matthew  fitting  at  the 
receipt  of  cuflom  ;  and  he  faith  unte  him,  Folloiv  vie.  And 
he  arofe  and  folloived  him.\ 

The  day  following  Jefus  would  go  forth  into  Galilee,  and 
findcth  Philip,  and  faith  unto  him,  Follow  ?ne.  Philip 
caught  the  Spirit  of  this  new  fe£t  fo  entirely,  as  not  only 
to  be  willing  to  follow  Jefus,  but  to  ufe  his  influence 
to  prolelyte  others.  He  foon  after  met  withNathanael, 
and  faid  to  him,  IVe  have  found  HIM  of  whom  Mofes  in 
tlye  law,  and  the  prophets  did  write,  Jefus  of  Nazarethy 
the  fin  of  Jofeph.  And  Nathanael  faid  unto  him.  Can  there 
any  good  thing  come  cut  of  NaZareth  ?  Philip  faith  unto 
hinti  Come  and  fee 

Thefe  h£is,  recorded  by  the  evangelifts,  place  before 
us  a  complete  hiiiory  of  the  commencement  of  the  gof- 
pel  church.  But  in  this  account  not  a  trace  of  its  con- 
nexion with  the  Jewiih  church  can  be  perceived. 

When  Jefus  Chrill  appointed  his  apoftles  the  firft  offi- 
cers in  his  new  church,  did  he  confiilt  the  chief  priefts, 
the  fcribes  and  pharifees  ?  Or  did  he  appoint  them  by 
his  own  authority,  totally  independent  of  them  ?  Fa<fts 
ill  unite  in  denionftrating  the  latter. 

The  reafoning?  of  our  P«dobaptift  brethren  have 
ilways  appeared  to  us  exceedingly  defective  on  this 
point.  They  uniformly  argue,  that  the  Jewifli  and 
Chriftian  churches  are  the  fame  ;  and  that  the  latter  is 
no  mdre  than  a  continuance  of  the  former  :  but  they 
h^^e  never  fliown  us  when,  where,  or  how  the  latter 
ohdrch  was  connected  with  the  former  :  and  it  is  be- 
lieved tkat  they  never  can.  They  have  feemed  wholly 
to  ftep  over  this  point.  At  one  time  they  prefent  to  u< 
the  Jewiih  church  under  the  covenant  of  circumciiiolii 
enjoying  many  privileges  and  bleffings  j  by  and  by,  they 

♦  Johft  i.  J5— 37.        f  Matt.  fiii.  I^,  It.  \  ix.  f. 


i:  48  ] 

prefent  us  the  gofpel  church  enjoying  very  different 
and  much  greater  privileges,  and  tell  us  that  this  is  the 
fame  church,  only  under  a  different  difpenfation.  But 
if  this  be  a  fa6l,  would  not  Jefus  Chrirt  and  the  leaders 
of  the  Jewifh  church  have  acSted  in  concert  ?  and 
v^'ould  not  the  difciples  of  Chrift,  and  the  members  of 
that  church  have  been  in  harmony  with  each  other  ? 
Would  there  not  be  as  much  propriety  in  faying  that 
the  protcftant  church,  and  the  papal  church  from 
which  they  feparated  were  one  and  the  fame  ?  Some 
branches  of  the  proteibnt  church  approximate  much 
more  to  the  papal,  than  the  gofpel  church  did  to  the 
JewiOi.  But  if  proteftants  acknowledge  their  church 
to  be  but  a  continuance  of  the  old  papal  church,  we 
think  they  ought  at  Icfaft  to  make  lome  confellion  for 
having  abufed  their  Alma  AlaUr,  by  calling  her  the 
<«  old  where  of  Babylon" — **  The  mother  of  abom- 
inations; &c." 

It  is  a  fact  which  no  one  can  deny,  that  Jefus  Chrift, 
during  his  perfonal  miniftry,  did  collect  a  large  number 
of  difciples  and  followers  of  both  fexes :  that  he  fent 
forth  teventy  difciples  at  one  time  to  preach  the  gofpel, 
and  to  evince  its  power  by  miracles.  That  thefe  all 
fiood  totally  unconnected  with  the  old  Jewifh  church 
is  abundantly  evident,  from  the  unceafmg  oppolition 
which  the  laliter  made  to  the  former.  We  beg  to  know 
whether  ChriiVs  difciples,  with  their  Mafter  at  their 
head,  did  not  conftitute  a  church,  a  complete  church 
in  gofpel  order  ?  If  fo,  here  were  two  churches  exiiting 
at  the  fame  time  in  direct  oppofition  to  each  other  : 
for  it  muft  be  remembered  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  not  yet  taken  from  the  Jews  and  given  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. We  ^Ik,  which  of  thefe  two  is  to  be  conlidered 
as  the  true  church  ?  The  Jewifli  church  continued  its 
vilible  Itate,  and  retained  its  vifible  fonns  of  worfliip 
long  after  the  cftablilhment  of  Chriftianity.  And  there 
was  juft  as  much  friendfliip  in  this  old  church  towards 
the  followers  of  Jefus,  when  they  ftoned  Stephen  to 
death  for  no  other  fault,  than  becaufe  he  was  fiUed  with 
the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  when  they  caught  Paul  in  the 
temple  and  were  ready  to  puil  him  in  quarters,  as  whe» 


[     *9     ] 

Jems  was  in  the  midft  of  them,  teaching  and  preaching 
the  kingdom  of  God. 

Did  Chrift  treat  the  Jewifh  church  in  fuch  a  manner, 
or  receive  fuch  treatment  from  it,  as  would  lead  us  to 
fuppofe  that  lie  confidercd  it  as  his  church,  which  he 
purchafed  with  his  own  blood  ? 

To  elucidate  the  idea,  pleafe  to  examine  the  debarc 
between  Chrift  and  the  leaders  of  this  church,  recorded 
in  the  eighth  chapter  of  John.  In  this,  Jefus  declared 
himfelf  the  /igki  of  the  nvorld.  The  Pharifees  diibelieved 
it,  and  told  him  plainly  that  he  bore  reard  of  himjef^  and 
that  his  record  was  not  true.  (ver.  12,  13.)  Chrift  told 
them  that  they  were  ignorant  both  of  him  and  of  his 
Father,  (v.  19.)  Te  are^  faid  hey  from  beneaihy  lam  from 
above  ;  ye  are  of  this  worlds  I  am  not  of  this  world. — If  vf 
believe  tiot  that  I  am  he^  yefjall  die  in  pur  fns.  (v.  23,  24<.) 
In  order  to  evade  the  force  of  Chrift's  do(^rine,  they 
pleaded  their  covenant  privileges  :  We  be  Abraham^ s feed, 
I  k?JOiu  that  ye  are  Abrakarn  s  feedy  replied  Jefus  ;  but  xe 
fetk  to  kill  f/iey  becaufe  my  ivord  hath  no  place  in  you,  I 
/peak  that  ivkich  I  have  fecn  with  my  Father y  and  ye  do 
that  ivhich  ye  have  feen  ivith  your  father.  They  anfwered 
and  faid  unto  hiniy  Abraham  is  our  father,  Jefus  faith  unto 
ihi'm.  If  ye  ivere  Abrahants  CHILDREN,  you  nvould  do  the 
works  cf  Abraham.  Chrift  feems  to  admit  that  they 
were  Abraham's  natural  feed,  but  denies  that  they  were 
his  children  in  a  fpiritual  fenfe.  Unwilling  to  acknowl- 
edge themfelves  deftitute  of  religion,  and  to  prove  that 
they  had  a  fair  title  to  heaven  without  being  indebted 
to  him,  they  declared  that  God  was  their  Father.  Jifus 
faid  unto  them^  If  God  were  your  Father,  ye  would  love  me  : 
for  I  proceeded  forth  and  came  from  God  ;  neither  cam:'  I 
rfmyfelj,  but  he  fen  t  me,  (v.  41,  42.)  At  length  ChriH: 
faid  to  them,  Te  are  of  your  father  the  devil^  and  the  lu/fs 
of  your  father  ye  will  do.  (v.  44.)  With  a  view  no  doubt 
to  Ihow  the  keennefs  of  their  jefentment  at  this  plain 
dealing,  they  anfwered  him,  Say  we  not  well  that  thou  art 
a  Samaritan^  and  hajl  a  devil  ?  Does  this  look  like  th»t 
language  of  love  which  fubfifted  between  Chrift  and 
his  true  church  ?    Every  candid  heart  will  reply.  No. 


L     50     J 

,  Is  it  poffible  to  bring  our  minds  to  believe  that  the 
true  church  could  ever  treat  the  blelfed  Saviour  as  the 
Jews  treated  him  ?  They  not  only  defpifed  and  held 
him  in  contempt,  calumniated  and  Jibufed  him,  but  ac- 
tually perfecuted  him  to  death  !  Who  was  it  that  the 
traitor  covenanted  with,  to  fell  his  Lord  for  thirty 
pieces  of  fdver  ?  Was  it  to  an  ignorant  mob,- made  up 
of  Gentile  libertines,  and  headed  by  fome  fanatical 
leader  ?  No  fuch  thing.  Judas  made  his  calculations  with 
more  certainty.  He  went  dire(fl!y  to  the  CiUEF  priests, 
the  principal  leaders  in  this  church.  And  do  you 
think  they  would  let  fo  fair  an  opportunity  pafs,  to  get 
into  their  hands  a  man  whom  they  hated  ?  Surely  no. 
The  bargain  was  clofed  at  once  ;  and  Judas  was  fent 
v^ith  a  band  of  men  to  arreft  him**  Who  was  it  firft 
formed  the  delign  of  putting  Jefusto  death  ?  The  princi- 
pal leaders  of  the  Jewifti  church.  And  ivhen  the  morn- 
ing was  come,  ALL  THE  CHIEF    PRIESTS    AND    ELDERS  of 

the  people  took  counfel  agaiti/i  Jefui  to  put  him  to  death.  In 
order  to  accomplish  their  murderous  defign,  he  muft 
be  delivered  to  Pilate  the  governor,  to  pafs  fentence 
of  death  upon  him.  Pilate,  though  a  Gentile,  feemed 
to  have  fome  fenfe  of  moral  juftice,  and  was  defirous  to 
underftand  the  real-caufe  of  their  complaint.  But  who 
arraigned  him  before  Pilate's  bar  ?  Thwe  otun  nation^ 
faid  he,  and  the  chief  priejls  have  delivered  thee  to  me — 
What  haft  thou  done  ?  Jefus  at  once  ftated  the  true 
ground  of  the  controverfy.  My  kingdom,  faid  he,  is  not 
of  this  lucrld.  The  more  Pilate  heard  and  faw,  the 
uronger  was  his  conviction  of  the  innocency  of  Jefus. 
Several  means  had  been  employed  to  avert  the  fentence, 
but  without  effetSt.  At  length,  recolleOing  that  it  had 
been  a  cuftoYn  at  this  feaft  to  releafe  a  prifoner,  and 
having  two,  he  hoped  they  would  choofe  Jefus.  But  in 
this  he  was  deceived.  His  perfuaiions  \Yere  all  in  vain. 
Malice  had  fixed  the  infernal  purpofe  too  ftrongly  in 
their  breafts  to  be  fhaken  by  his  reafonings.  No,  Jefus 
muft  die.  His  crucifixion  was  determined  on.  Hence 
the  chief  priejis  and  elders  perfuaded  the  multitude  that  they 
Jlmild  afk  Barabbas,  and  defroy  Jefus.\     O  thou  infulted, 

*  Matt,  xxvi,  14,  15,  47.  f  Matt,  XKvIi.  %o. 


[     51     ] 

fuffering  Lamb  of  God  !  were  thefe  the  leaders  of  thy 
church,  thy  true  gofpel  church  ?  Muft  we  confider 
them  as  thy  friends,  while  manifefting  this  murderous 
oppofition  to  thee,  merely  becaule  they  deicended  from 
the  loins  of  Abraham  ?  We  cannot.  Our  hearts  revolt 
at  the  horrid  thought. 

Nor  can  we  believe  that  this  was  the  church  into 
which  the  Gentile  converts  were  grafted.  No  *,  it  was 
the  church  gathered  by  Jefus,  and  his  apoftles  ;  from 
among  the  Jews  indeed,  but  compofed  only  of  the  ron- 
Ycrts  to  his  new  dotftrine  ;  of  Separates  from  the  old 
Jewifli  church  and  religion.  No  others  compofed  any 
part  of  the  New  Tei\ament  church.  Muft  we  not  fliut 
cur  eyes  againft  the  cleared  light  to  believe  otherwife  ? 
We  certainly  mul^. 

This,  however,  is  one  of  the  main  pillars  on  which 
Pacdohaptifm  refts,That  this  old  Jewifli  church  and  the 
New  Tcltament  church  are  the  fame.  This  is  Mr. 
Kdwards's  potent  argument,  with  which  he  has  aflailed 
the  Baptifts,  and  bid  them  (in  his  imagination)  heaps 
upon  heaps,  as  Samlbn  did  the  Phili (lines  with  the 
jaw-bone  of  an  afs.  But  with  all  his  zeal  to  maintain 
the  famenefs  of  the  Jewifh  and  Chriftian  churches,  his 
confcience  compelled  him  to  make  one  very  juft  concel- 
fion.  His  conl'cience,  did  I  fay  ?  No,  I  rather  think  he 
was  a  little  off  his  guard.  Speaking  of  the  Jcwilli 
people  colledlively,  he  fays  j  "  As  to  their  character, 
it  is  certain  that,  zj}w  only  excepted,  they  were  i:pon 
the  whole  the  deadly  enemies  of  CnRist-  and  his 
doctrine."  (p.  6*2.)  Reader  !  paufe  a  moment,  and  re- 
flecSt  upon  this  declaration.  That  the  Jewilli  church,  a 
few,  a  very  few,  excepted,  were  the  deacl/y  enemies  of 
Chrift  and  his  doftrine  !  And  yet,  if  there  be  any  truth 
in  Mr.  Edwards's  argument,  this  was  not  only  a  /ample 
of  the  gofpel  church,  but  the  church  in  reality  !  the 
fame  with  that  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation.  A  little 
altered  indeed  in  "  diet"  and  "  drefs,"  but  identically 
the  fame."*  And  was  this  one  of  Mr.  Edwards's  "  can- 
did reafons  for  leaving  the  Baptifts,"  becaufe  they  do 
not  believe  Chrift's  church  to  be  principally  made  up  of 

*  Yid.  p,  46,  48. 


C     i2     ] 

his  deadly  enemies  ?  I'he  Baptifts  entertain  no  fucli 
horrid  idea.  If  he  believes  his  own  reafoning,  it  was 
certainly  a  very  fuifitient  one  for  his  leaving  a  com- 
munity who  think  very  differently  :  For  hoiu  tan  tnxio 
'tLalk  together^  except  they  he  agreed  ? 

We  have  thus  briefly  ftated  a  few  fa^ls  which  ferve 
to  rtiow  the  temper  and  feelings  of  the  JewiQi  church 
iowi^rds  our  bieilld  Redeemer  and  his  do<^\rine,  and 
alfo  v/hat  treatment  he  received  from  them. 

We  will  now  inquire,  whether  the  apoflles  of  J.fus 
Chriil:  agreed  in  fentuncnt  with  the  advocates  for  infant 
baptifm,  with  refpc^t  to  the  Jamenefs  of  the  Jevvifli 
and  ChriRian  churches. 

Immediately  after  the  ufcenfion  of  the  Saviour,  we 
are  prefented  with  a  view  of  his  little  flock  ;  this  new 
gofpel  church  in  a  company  by  themfelves.  Kere  we 
find  a  body  of  difciples,  amounting  to  about  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty,  allembled  in  an  open  room  at  Jerufa- 
lem.  Tlefe  all  continued  ivith  one  accord,  in  prayer  and 
fupplicationSi  with  the  women ^  and  Mary  the  mother  ojf  JefuSy 
and  ivith  his  briihren.  Here  were  no  fcribes  nor  phari- 
fees  intermixed.  No  one  who  retained  his  jftanding  in 
the  Jewifh  church,  nor  any  v,ho  feh  unfriendly  to  the 
intereftscf  Jefus.  The  traitor  himfelf  no  longer  ob- 
truded his  unhallowed  prefence  among  them.  They 
were  all  united  in  love.*  Whci  the  day  of  pentecojl  iva.f 
fully  come,  we  find  them  again  together,  ivith  one  accord 
in  one  phce.  Here  the  apoftles  experienced  the  fulfil- 
ment of  whi.t  had  been  predicted  by  John,  and  prcmif- 
ed  by  Chrift.  They  were  all  baptized  ivith  the  Holy 
Ghofl  a?idfire.  No  fooner  was  this  noifed  abroad,  than 
a  vaft  multitude  collected.  Some  were  flruck  wiih 
wonder  and  amazement ;  others  mocked,  and  faid  thefe 
men  are  full  of  new  i^ine.  But  Peter  flood  up  and  ad- 
drefTed  the  multitudf  in  a  difcourfe  peculiarly  adapted 
to  the  cccaiion,  and  to  the  circumftances  of  his  audi- 
ence. His  preacliing  was  attended  with  a  marvellous 
difplay  of  divine  power.  He  concluded  in  the  following 
words  •,  Therefore  let  ALL  the  houfe  of  Ifrael  know  affuredly^ 
that  Cod  hath  made  that  fame  JfuSi  whom  ye  have  crif- 

*  Acfls  i.  14. 


[     53     ] 

CTFiF-D,  both  Lord  and  Chrijl.  Here  the  hcuje  of  Jfrael  or 
JewiTn  church  coUedl:ive]y,  is  charged  with  having  taken 
the  Son  of  God,  and  with  wicked  hands  crucified  and 
flain  him.  The  word  delivered  by  Peter  became 
/harper  than  a  tivo-edged  fivcrd  !  Ajid  they  luere  pricked 
in  their  hearty  and  Jaid  unto  Peter^  and  to  the  refi  of  the 
apcftles,  Men  and  brethren^  ivhat  fhall  toe  do  ?  Then  Peter 
fiud  icnto  ihem^  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in 
the  name  cf  f^fus  Chrijl^  for  the  reniiffion  offinsy  and  ye 
JJmll  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Goof}.  For  the  prvmife  is 
unto  youy  and  to  your  children^  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off, 
even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  calL'^ 

What  fhall  lue  do  P  was  the  language  of  thofe  wouncj- 
ed-hearted  finners.  Repent,  faid  Peter,  and  he  baptized 
every  one  of  you.  He  commanded  none  to  be  baptized, 
but  what  he  firft  commanded  to  repent.  The  promife 
of  remiflion  of  fins,  and  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft-, 
WHS  not  m.ade  to  all  indifcrirainately,  but  was  predicated 
upon  their  repentance  and  baptifm,  upon  their  being 
called  by  the  Lord,  and  not  upon  the  baptifm  of  im- 
oenitents.  The  promife  quoted  by  the  apoftle,  as  an 
encouragement  to  then2  and  to  their  children  to  repent, 
muft  alfo  be  underftood  with  this  limitation. 

*  The  apoftle  here  no  Joub*  alluded  to  the  prmiife  recorded  by  the 
piOphiJt  jeremiiih.  Behutd  the  days  tomt.,  faith  the  Lardy  that  I  tx-ill  make 
tf  NLW  COVENANT  •With  the  heufe  of  If ra  el  aud  with  the  hovft  of  Juduh  : 
nut  atcording  to  the  covenant  that  J  made  zvitb  their  fathers  in  the  day 
KL-ben  I  toik  them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  «f  the  land  of  Egypt ^  tohicb 
my  ctvcnatit  tJ.>ey  br-uki^  altb(,ugh  I  zvas  an  bufband  unto  ik^m,faiib  the  Ltrd. 
£ut  this  fhall  be  the  covenant  that  I  -will  make  ijuith  the  boufe  oflf-  ael  ;  ^^ftif 
thofe  days y  faith  the  Lord,  I  WILL  PUT  MY  LAW  IN  THEIR  INWARD 
PARTS,  AND  WRITE  IT  iN  THEIR  HEARTS,  and  will  be  their  God,  ar.i 
they  fhall  be  my  people  And  they /hall  teach  no  more  every  man  bis  neigh' 
tnuTy  and  every  man  his  brother,  faying,  Knciv ye  the  Loid ;  for  they  SHALt. 
ALL  KNO'.y  mi:,  from  the  leaf  cf  thxm  unta  the  great efi  of  them,  faith  the 
Lord  ;  for  I  ivill  forgive  their  iniquity,  and  remember  tii'.r  fn  no  more.f 
This  n-iw  covenant  was  eftablifhed  upon  better  prcmifet  thai;  thofe  con- 
tained in  the  covenant  of  circumciGon,  God  did  not  enjjage  in  that, 
the  renewing  influences  cf  the  I^oly  Spirit,  to  put  his  la'zv  !n  their  inward 
parts.  That  covenant  was  outward  in  the fltfh  ;  this  is  inv/ard,  the 
laxv  vuritten  upon  the  heart  In  this  new  covtDant,  the  very  laifl  Ifnows 
the  Lord.  In  that,  many,  vvho  v/tre  the  greatefi  ia  office  and  pov-fcr, 
knew  not  the  Lord. 

t  J^^-  »^^'-  31—34. 
E  2 


C     54     ] 

We  cannot  poiEbly  agree  with  Mr.  Edwards  in  his 
explanation  of  this  pafFage.  His  reafoning,  to  us  ap- 
pears both  fophiftical  and  abfurd.  He  is  io  very  anx- 
ious to  iecure  a  place  for  infants  in  the  goJ'pel  church, 
that  he  Teems  willing  to  pafs  over  the  real  bieirings  con- 
tained in  the  promrfe,  and  fix  on  one  which  by  his  own 
reafoning  they  were  already  in  pofTeilion  of.  After 
holding  the  word  children  m  a  ftare  of-  torture,  umil  it 
has  paffed  three  ftages  of  diicufQon,  he  thiiiks  he  has 
l^rained  the  important  point  ;  i.  e.  **  Tiiat  infanrs  are 
placed  in  the  fume  relation  to  baptifm,  as  they  were  of 
old  to  circumcifion."  (p.  71,  72.) 

What  an  admirable  comment  upon  the  apoftle's 
words  !  Here  were  a  number  of  perfjns  pricked  in  the 
heart,  and  crying  out  in  diUrefs,  Whatfiall'we  dc  P  They 
are  told  for  their  comfort,  that  the  promife  is  to  you  and 
to  yjur  children  ;  by  which  they  were  to  underftand  that 
they  were  placed  in  the  fame  relation  to  baptifm  as  they 
were  of  old  to  circumcidon  !  What  confolation  this 
muft  be  to  a  heart  throbbing  under  the  pangs  of  con- 
Ti6lion,  or  inquiring  with  the  ardor  of  a  new-born  foul 
after  duty  I  But  we  will  leave  Mr.  Edw;jrds  for  the 
prefent. 

Let  us  now  hear  the  concludon  of  the  facred  hifto- 
lian.  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  ivord  were  bap'- 
lized  J  and  the  fame  day  there  ivcre  added  unto  them  about 
three  thiufand  fouls.  We  alk,  To  whom  were  thefe  con-* 
verts  added  ?  Was  it  to  the  old  Jcwiih  church  .''  of 
*o  the  new  goipel  church  .**  for  they  both  exifted  at 
this  time  j  but  in  totul  oppofition  to  each  other.  We 
©nly  wiih  that  c-onfcience  may  make  the  decilion.  This 
folemn  and  interefting  account  clofes  wiih  thefe  words  ; 
.And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily ^  fuch  as  Jh'uld  be 
faved.  What  church,  v/e  aik  again,  was  this  ?  Was  it 
ihe  old  perfecuting  Jewiili  ciiurch  ?  no  one  we  think 
can  polhbly  believe  it.  No  ;  they  were  taken  from 
that,  and  added  to  the  Chriftian  church.  We  are  con- 
fident that  there  cannot  be  an  inftance  produced 
i)i  a  fingle  a(5t  of  Chriftian  fellowHiip  between  thefe 
two  churches.  How  often  in  the  book  of  Ads,  that 
authentic    hiftory  of  the   primitive  Chriftians;  do   we 


[     55     J 

find  the  leaders  of  the  gofpel  church  dragged  before  the 
rulers  of  the  Jewiih  church,  and  by  their  orders  beaten 
and  imprifoned  ;  and  (Iraitly  charged  to  fpeak  no 
more  in  the  name  of  Jeftis  !  If  both  were  the  church  of 
Chrift,  his  kingdom  was  certainly  divided  againil  itlelf  -, 
and  our  Lord  has  told  us  the  fate  of  fuch  a  kingdom. 
The  papal  and  proteftant  churches  were  never  more 
at  variance  in  the  hctteft  times  of  perfecution  rhan 
thefe  two  churches  were,  until  the  gofpel  diipenfation 
\v:.^  taken  from  the  Jev.'s  and  given  to  the  Geiitiles. 

It  may  poffibly  be  faid  that  thefe  arguments  only 
prove  the  corruptions  that  were  in  that  church,  but  do 
not  affedl  its  real  {late.  To  determine  whether  an  old 
houfe  ought  to  be  taken  down,  in  order  to  build  a  new 
one  in  its  room,  it  would  not  be  necefTary  to  know 
what  it  once  was,  but  only  to  examine  it  in  irs  preient 
fiate  5  and  ihould  a  few  pieces  of  timber  be  faved 
from  this  old  wreek,  and  put  into  the  new  building, 
\vc  iliould  hardly  fuppofe  any  ptrfon  would  fay  it  was 
the  fame,  the  very  fame  houfe.     The  application  is  eafy. 

In  order  to  bring  this  argument  to  a  clcfe,  we  '<  Ik, 
Were  not  the  principal  oppofers  and  perlecutors  of  Jefus 
Chrift  and  his  fcUowers,  officers  and  members  of  the 
Jewiih  church  ?  ^Vere  they  not  confldered  at  the 
time  to  be  in  regular  flanding  ?  To  exemplify  the 
queftioD,  we  will  Uh6\  one  only  ;  it  Oiall  be  the  great 
apoftle  of  the  Gentiles.  Was  he  not  a  me^-ber  of  the 
Jewiih  church,  at  the  very  time  he  was  perfecuting 
the  poor  faints  of  Jefus,  and  haling  them  both  men 
and  women  to  prifon  ? 

The  accownt  which  Paul  has  given  of  himfelf  will 
probably  fatisfy  us  on  this  point.  In  a  ftatement  which 
he  made  to  the  Galatians  reipec^ting  his  call  to  preach, 
he  lays  ;  But  I  ccriify  ycu^  hrtthren^  that  the  gofpel  which 
lUiJJ  pnached  of  mcy  is  7wt  after  nidn  ;  for  I ?itiihtr  rfreiveiJ 
it  of  ma/i,  neither  was  I  taught  ity  tut  by  the  revelation  of 
Jejus  Chrifi.  For  ye  have  heard  of  my  converfaiion  in  time 
paj})  in  THE  Jews*  religion  •,  how  that  beyond  meafure 
I  perfecitted  the  church  of  God^  and  wafted  it.  And  profited 
in  the  Jews*  religion  above  many  rny  equals  in  mine  cwa 
nation  ;  being  more  exceedingly  zcalciis  of  the  traditions  of 
my  fa^Hi's*     But — But  pray^  Paul;  let  us  interrupt  your 


[     56     ] 

narrative  a  moment,  that  you  may  explain  yourfelf. 
You  have  twice  mentioned  the  Jdivs^  religion^  as  if  it 
were  diftindt  from  the  religion  of  Jefus  Chrift.  You 
have  alfo  fiid,  that  you  perfecuted and  ivafled  the  CHURCH 
OF  GOD.  You  moft  certainly  do  not  mean  the  old  Jew- 
ifh  church,  for  if  we  underftand  you,  you  were  a^Tting 
in  concert  with  that.  "  My  manner  of  life  from  my 
youth,  which  was  at  the  iirft  among  mine  own  nation 
at  Jerufalem,  know  all  the  Jews  ;  who  knew  me  from 
the  beginning,  (if  they  would  teAify)  that  after  the 
STKAiTEST  SECT  OF  OUR  RELiaiON,  I  Hved  a  pharifee/'' 
And  in  my  zeal  for  that  church,  "  I  verily  thought  with 
myfelf,  that  I  ought  to  do  many  things  contrary  to  the 
name  of  Jefus  of  Nazareth.  Which  thing  I  alfo  did  in 
Jerufalem  ;  and  many  of  the  faints  did  I  £!iut  up  in 
prifbn/'  I  did  not  do  it  however,  in  a  riotous  manner 
without  the  concurrence  of  my  brethren,  but  "  having 
received  authority  from  the  chief  priefls»  And  when  they 
were  put  to  death,  I  gave  my  voice  againll  them.'  And 
puniflied  them  oft  in  every  fynagogue,  ?;nd  compelled, 
them  to  bhfpheme  :  and  being  exceedingly  mad  againft 
them,  I  perfecuted  them  even  unto  ftrange  cities."* 
'«  But  when  it  pieafed  Godj  who  feparated  me  from  n^y 
mother's  womb,  and  called  me  by  his  grace,  to  reveal  his 
Son  in  me,  that  T  might  preach  him  among  the  hea- 
then y  immediately  I  conferred  not  with  flefh  and 
blood — but  I.  went  into  Arabia  and  returned  again  to 
Damafcus.  And  was  unknown  by  face  unto  the 
churches  of  Judea,  which  were  in  Chriji  :  but  they  had 
heard  only,  that  he  who  perfecuted  us  in  times  paft, 
now  preacheth  the  faith  'which  cme  he  defrayed.  And 
they  glorified  God  in  me."f 

In.  this  man,  before  his  converiion,  we  have  a  com- 
plete fpecimen  of  the  general  temper  of  the  Jcwifli 
church,  during  moft  of  the  time  the  gofpel  was  con- 
tinued among  them.  This  will  be  evinced  by  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  from  one  of  his  epiftles.  "  For  yc, 
brethren,  became  followers  of  the  churches  of  God, 
which  in  Judea  are  in  Chrifb  Jefus  :  for  ye  have  alfo 
fuffered  like  tilings  of  your  own  countrymen y^^^vi  as  they 

*  A«a»  jxvi.  4,  5,  9,  ic,  IX.         f  Gal.  i,  ii— x;  and  «^a4* 


'I     57     ] 

bave  of  the  Jiius  :  who  both  killed  the  Lord  JeiliSj 
a.nd  their  own  prophets,  and  have  pcrfecuted  us  ;  and 
they  pleafe  not  God,  and  are  contrary  to  all  men  "* 

From  the  evidence  ariljng  from  the  favSls  which  haTe- 
been  briefly  detailed  in  the  preceding  pages,  the  follow- 
ing conclusion  irrefiftibiy  forces  itfelf  upon  the  mind, 
vi/.  That  the  gofpel  church  is  not  a  continuation  of  the 
old  Jewifh  church,  but  totally  difrin^l  :  That  it  dif- 
fers CiTentially  in  its  conftitution  ;  in  the  qualifications 
required  in  order  to  mcmberlhip  ;  in  its  vifible  form,, 
that  being  national,  this  being  felc<ftcJ  and  particular  : 
That  tlie  predicTtions  and  declaration  of  the  prophets,  of 
Jefus  Chrill:  and  his  apoftles,  all  prefent  it  to  us  as  a  dif- 
tindt  body  :  That  facts  which  cannot  be  coiitroveried, 
deterir.inc  that  they  never  were  united,  although  they 
both  actually  exifted  at  the  fame  time  ;  but  that  the 
latter  was  conftantly  oppofed  and  perfecuted  by  the 
former. 

Hence  we  conclude,  that  as  the  two  churches  are 
every  way  fo  dillin6t,  the  rii^ht  of  infants  to  member- 
iliip  in  the  Jewi(h  church  is  infuiiiclent  to  fuilain  their 
cldm  to  mernberfliip  in  the  gofpel  church.  If  they 
have  any  claim  to  memberdiip  under  the  gofpel  dif- 
penfation,  it  mufl  be  foutided  in  the  fpecial  proviiions 
of  this  difpenliition,  and  not  inferred  from  any  thing  in 
the  former.  "  The  truth,"  faith  Dr.  Emmons,  "  is,  we 
muft  learn  the  peculiar  duties  of  believers  under  the 
prefent  difpenfation  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  from 
the  difpenfation  itfelf,  which  enjoins  all  the  peculiar 
duties  which  belong  to  it.  If  believers  are  nov/  to 
baptize  their,  children, — it  is  not  becaufe  they  v/ere 
once  obliged  to  circum^ife  them."f 

If  thefe  things  are  true,  as  we  verily  believe  they  are, 
we  befeech  our  brethren  not  to  fhut  their  eyes  ?.gainft 
the  light,  and  rejeiSt  them.  O  that  the  great  Head  of 
the  church  would  enlighten  each  of  us  more  perfeclly 
in  the  knowledge  of  his  will  ! 

*   1  Their,  ii.  M*  ij*  t  Replj-  to  Dr.  Hcnir.icnway. 


[     58     ] 


S  E  C  T  I  O  N     IV. 

StrlBures  on  the  Rev.  Peter  Edwards's  "  Candid 
Reafons  for  renouncing  the  Principles  of  Antip^dohap^ 
t'tfmr 

X  HIS  gentleman  has  been  feveral  times  named 
in  the  preceding  pages,  and  the  book  now  before  us 
referred  to. 

My  defign  is  only  to  make  ftriftures.  It  cannot 
therefore  be  expe<fteu  that  I  fhould  follow  him  in  all 
his  long-laboured  fyllogifms,  nor  attempt  to  unravel  all 
his  intricate  v/indings.  This  talk  is  rendered  the  lefs 
neceiTary,  as  Dr.  Jenkins's  very  able  reply  is  before  tbfe 
public.  In  this,  a  candid  reader  will  difcover  much 
foHd  learning,  and  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  fubjedt 
difcufled. 

In  v/riting  thefe  Arictures,  I  have  no  wifli  to  detract 
from  Mr.  Edwards's  "  hard-eariied fame^''  nor  to  fpeak 
diminutively  of  his  abilities  as  a  polcnlc  writer.  I  wiOi 
I  could  in  juftice  acknowledge  him  to  be  a  fair  and 
honourable  difputant.  Whether  my  judgment  is  warp- 
ed by  prejudice,  is  not  for  me  to  fay  j  but  his  reafonings 
have  ever  appeared  to  me  extremely  fophiftical  and  un- 
candid.  The  reafons  on  which  I  found  this  cpiuion 
will  be  {q^t\  in  the  courfe  of  thefe  animadverlions. 

The  reader  is  alfo  notified,  that  no  attempt  will  be 
made  in  the  enfuing  pages  to  vindicate  Mr.  Booth,  as 
the  writer  has  never  feen  his  book  to  which  Mr.  Ed- 
wards has  replied.  Nothing  therefore  will  be  noticed, 
only  what  implicates  cur  fentirnents  generally. 

Mr.  Edwards,  in  his  introdutlion,  gives  what  he  calls 
"  a  fair  ihtement  of  the  queftion."  This  ftatement  is 
divided  into  five  Thefes.  His  firil:  Thefts  we  fliould  not 
objecSt  to,  had  he  conduced  the  difpute  accorcHng  to 
the  principles  there  ftated.  It  ftands  thus — Thefts  1. 
**  That  we  iet  afide  all  thofe  filings  about  which  we  are 
agreed,  and  fix  our  attention  to  that  only  on  which  a 
difference  of  opinion  may  fall."     *«  Secondly,  that  this 


C    59    3 

difference  be  dated  in  a  manner  the  moft  plain  and 
fimple."  The  reader  will  judge,  whether  Mr.  Ed- 
wards has  not  violated  the  firft  of  thefe  rules,  in  the 
moft  flagrant  manner.  Has  he  not  brought  up  the 
fubje(5l  oi female  communion,  and  employed  it  as  a  main 
argument  againft  the  Baptifts  ?  Yea,  the  very  argu- 
ment, which  he  boaftingly  tells  us  that  he  has  ufed 
with  {o  much  dexterity,  as  to  filence  every  Baptift  he 
has  met  with  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour.  And  yet  this  is 
a  fubject  that  we  are  entirely  agreed  in.  What  has 
female  communion  to  do  with  infant  baptifm  ?  Nothing 
at  all. 

Thefts  2.-*-"  Antipsedobaptifts  confider  thofe  perfons 
as  meet  fubje^ls  of  baptifm,  who  are  fuppofed  to  pof- 
fefs  faith  in  Chrift,  and  thofe  only.  Paidobaptifts 
agree  with  them  in  this,  that  believers  are  proper  fub- 
jects  of  baptifm,  but  deny  that  fuch  only  are  proper 
fubje(fts.  They  think,  that,  together  with  fuch  believ- 
ing adults,  who  have  not  yet  been  beipfizecl,  their  infants 
have  a  right  to  baptifm  as  well  as  their  parents."  The 
laft  part  of  this  poiition  implies  v/hat  is  not  true,  which 
-  will  be  feen  in  our  remarks  upon  the  next. 

Thijis  3. — "  From  this  view  of  the  fentiments  of 
each,  it  appears  that  both  parties  are  agreed  on  the 
article  of  adult  baptifm,  which  muft  therefore  be  fet 
afide,  as  a  matter  entirely  out  of  difpute  j  for  it  can 
anfwer  no  good  purpofe  for  one  to  prove  what  the  other 
will  not  deny."  An  incautious  reader  by  this  ftate- 
ment  would  be  led  to  fuppofe,  that  the  two  denomina- 
tions had  the  fame  views  of  adults  being  proper  fub- 
•jeds  of  baptifm.  But  it  is  evident  that  we  differ  widely 
on  this  fubjecl.  It  is  not  true,  that  Pscdobaptifts  allow 
adult  baptifm,  only  under  certain  limitations.  They 
indeed  admit  fuch  as  have  never  been  baptized  in  in- 
fancy, when  they  come  to  be  believers.  But  why  da 
they  ?  Evidently  becaufe  they  could  never  baptize 
them  before.  Their  own,  or  their  parents'  confent  was 
wanting.  But  could  they  carry  their  fentiments  into 
complete  effedl,  it. would  put  an  entire  end  to  believers* 
baptifm  ;  for  they  would  baptize  every  infant  foon  after 
it  was  born  j  nor  would  they    allow  them  ever  after, 


C    60    ] 

{hould  they  become  believers,  to  be  baptized  agreeably 
to  their  own  confciences,  upon  the  pain  of  being  de- 
nounced as  Anabaptifts.  This  dife'ence  of  fentiment 
on  this  point  cannot  be  denied,  without  denying  an 
obvious  truth.  It  is  therefore  but  mere  evafion,  to  fay, 
that  we  are  agreed  on  this  point,  and  that  they  hold  to 
belisvers*  kaptifm  as  well  as  we.  They  certainly  would 
exterminate  it  out  of  the  world  if  they  could. 

But  what  is  Mr.  Edwards  making  this  preparation 
for  ?  The  anfwer  is  eafy.  It  is  to  get  rid  of  that  bur- 
den of  proof  ariiing  from  thofe  qualifications^  indifcrim- 
inately  required  in  order  to  brquifm,  with  which  his 
denomination  have  conliantly  been  prelTed  by  the  Bap- 
tists. 

We  fh?.ll  not  at  prefent  obje^l  to  his  ftatement  in 
the  clofe  of  this  polition,  viz,  "  The  fimple  queftion 
which  remains  to  be  decided  is  this,  Are  infants  fit  fub- 
je£ts  of  baptifm,  or  are  they  not  }  On  this  queftion  the 
whole  turns.  The  Pxdobaptifts  affirm,  and  the  Anti- 
p'^dobaptifls  deny."  But  we  fhall  take  the  liberty  to 
difprove  their  fitnefs,  by  urging  their  want  of  thofe  qual- 
ifications required  by  the  inltitution,  without  afking  Mr. 
Edwards's  confent. 

Thefts  4. — "  The  fimple  queftion  being  as  v/e  have  now 
ftated  it,  Are  mhms Jit  fu Ejects  of  baptifm,  or  are  they 
not  ?  it  will  clearly  follow,  that  all  thofe  places  which 
relate  to  believers'  baptifm,  can  prove  nothing  on  the 
lide  of  the  Baptifts  ;  and  the  reafon  is,  they  have  no 
relation  to  the  queftion."  No,  Mr.  Edwards,  we  (hall 
not  confent  to  this.  You  might  very  eafily  indeed  beat 
us  all  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour,  if  we  would  be  fo  foolifti  -^ 
as  to  confent  to  let  you  firft  tie  our  hands.  But  in  vain.^ 
is  thefnare  fpread  in  the  fight  of  af^y  bird.  You  afk,  "  Are 
infants  fit  fubjefts  of  l3aptifm  V  How  are  we  to  judge 
of  the  fitnefs  of  a  fubje(5t  any  otherwife  than  by  the 
qualifications  required  by  the  inftitution  .?  No,  no,  fay 
you,  thefe  all  refpedt  adults,  and  therefore  are  irrelevant 
to  the  fubje<^t.  Allow,  if  you  pleafe,  that  thefe  refpe^ 
adults  only,  and  will  not  this  concluiion  inevitably  fol- 
low, that  none  but  adults  were  to  be  baptized  .«* 


C     «!     ] 

If  the  qualifications  indefinitely  required  by  the  in- 
ftitution  of  baptifm,  (I  fay  indejimiely^  becaufe  the  fcrip- 
tures  give  us  no  idea  of  one  kind  of  qualifications  for 
aduUs,  and  another  for  infants)  if  thefe  are  to  form  no 
part  of  the  rule  by  which  we  are  to  judge  of  thejiin^/s 
of  infants,  what  are  we  to  judge  by  ?  Why  truly,  Mr* 
Edwards  has  furniflied  us  with  a  very  compendiout 
method  indeed.  "We  mufl  go  back  almoft  two  thou- 
fand  years  before  the  inftitution  of  baptifm  exifted,  and 
examine  another  inftitution  every  way  different  in  its  na- 
ture, mode,  and  defign,  and  belonging  to  another  church 
equally  different  from  the  Chriftian  church  *,  and  upon 
this  we  are  to  make  up  our  judgment  refpecting  the 
fitnefs  of  infants  for  a  New  Teftament  inftitution  !  Muft 
not  a  man  have  a  front  like  brafs,  who  can  charge  his 
opponents  with  fophiftry,  while  he  himfelf  is  guilty  of 
fuch  management  as  this,  to  keep  men  from  feeing  the 
truth  ?  It  is  believed,  that  there  is  not  another  fubject 
in  the  world,  on  which  men  would  reafon  fo  inconcluiive- 
ly.  Were  a  difpute  to  arife  concerning  the  right  of  citi- 
zenfhip  in  the  United  States,  how  fhould  we  determine 
the  queftion  ?  Should  we  determine  it  by  the  confti- 
tution  of  Great-Britain,  or  by  the  conftitution  of  the 
United  States  ?  We  think  there  would  be  but  one 
opinion  in  this  cafe,  ;.  e.  that  it  muft  be  determined  by 
the  conftltution  under  which  we  now  live.  Why  fhould 
we  not  determine  the  qualifications  for  an  inftitution  of 
the  gofpel  in  the  fame  way  ? 

Mr.  Edwards's  fifth  Thefts  is  a  mere  recapitulation 
of  the  preceding  j  therefore  it  is  thought  unneceffary  to 
ftate  it. 

We  fhall  now  proceed  to  his  ftatement  of  the  arga- 
Dients  which  the  Baptifts  bring  againft  infant  baptiirn. 
«  Of  thefe,"  he  tells  us,  «  there  are  two  only."  It  he 
had  allowed  us  to  fpeak  for  ourf^lves,  it  is  more  than 
poflible  we  might  hare  muftered  up  one  or  two  more. 
But  what  are  the  two  which  he  allows  us  to  bring  ? 

Firft,  «<  Aperfon  nuha  has  a  right  to  a  pfitive  itfitution 
mufi  be  exprefsly  mentioned  as  having  that  right ;  but  infants 
mre  not  fo  mentioned^  therefore  they  have  not  thai  right.'* 

This  argument  he  fuppofes  requires  that  eiprefs 
laemion  be  made  in  the  fcriptures  of  the  baptifm  of 

F 


C    62    3 

infmts.  Tills  he  fays,  is  "  aflumlng,  contracled,  falfe.** 
«  It  is  very  afTuming,  becaufe  it  feems  to  dictate  to  the 
ever  blefTed  God  in  what  manner  he  ought  to  fpeak  to 
his  creatures.  Since  it  is  no  where  contained  in  his  word, 
and  he  knows  beft  how  to  communicate  his  mind  to 
men,  it  little  becomes  fuch  creatures  as  we  are  to  lay- 
down  rules  by  which  he  fhall  proceed."  Is  it  not  si 
little  afuming  for  Mr.  Edwards  to  infift  upon  our  re*. 
cciving  and  approVing  a  practice  which  he  allows  not 
to  be  contained  in  the  ivord  of  God  J  Reader,  paufe  a 
moment,  and  reflect  upon  this  "  precious  confeflion." 
If  you  are  a  Baptift,  will  you  not  feel  more  thankful 
than  ever,  that  the  fentiments  you  pradlife  are  moft 
plainly  contained  in  God's  word  ?  Will  not  Mr.  Ed- 
wards's new  friends  blu{h  for  this  unguarded  conceffion, 
and  willi  he  had  been  a  little  more  careful  ?  He  adds, 
«  it  is  very  contra6led,  becaufe  it  fuppofes  we  cannot 
ijnderftand  what  God  fays,  but  when  he  fpeaks  to  us  in 
one  particular  way."  No  Sir,  you  miftake  :  it  fuppofes 
we  cannot  under ftand  him  when  he  does  not  fpcak  at 
all.  For  you  will  pleafe  to  remember,  you  have  juft 
fa  id,  it  is  no  where  contained  in  his  ivord.  And  this  is 
the  only  medium  through  which  he  has  fpoken  to  us 
refpecting  pofitive  inlHtutions.     But, 

*«  It  is  very  falfe  :  becaufe  (to  wave  all  other  inftan-- 
ces,  and  fix  on  one  only)  a  fubje<St  is  admitted  to  a  pofi- 
tive inftitute,  and  that  admiffion  is  according  to  truths 
and  fo  held  and  pra^lifed  by  all  who  ufe  Chriftian  rites, 
fvben  there  is  no  exprefs  law  or  example  to  fupport  it 
in  all  the  word  of  God.  It  is  the  cafe  of  women  to 
which  I  allude,  and  their  admiffion  to  the  Lord's 
table.'* 

This  is  Mr.  Edwards's  knock-down  argument,  witk 
V'hich  he  has  fo  often  vanqtiifhed  the  Baptifts.  He 
kas  fperit  twelve  pages  in  attempting  to  prove  that  there 
k  no  explicit  warrant  for  female  communion  ;  and 
therefore  that  it  ftands  upon  the  fame  footing  of  infant 
baptifm.  His  meaning  is,  that  the  right  of  infants  to 
buptlfm  is  equally  plain,  and  as  well  fupported  by  the 
Icriptures,  as  the  right  of  females  to  communion.  But 
tie  has  unhappily  dedroyed  his  argument  by  his  own 
'ft«tesnent.     For  he  fay$^  female  communion  "  is  held 


[     63     3 

and  praB'ifed  by  all  luho  life  ChryTian  rites. "^  If  infant 
baptifm  were  equally  as  plaioj  what  reafon  can  be  af- 
iigned  for  its  not  being  as  univeriaily  admitted  ?  He  is 
undoubtedly  correct  in  this,  that  no  Chriitian  fe£t  who 
have  admitted  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  fupper, 
have  dilaliowed  the  right  of  females.  It  is  equally 
certain,  that  from  the  lirft  mention  of  infant  baptifm  in 
eccleiiaftical  hiftory,  it  has  met  with  oppofition.  This 
cppofition  has  not  been  made  by  thole  who  profeiTed 
to  be  governed  by  the  decrees  of  popes  and  councils  ; 
but  fuch  as  profeiled  to  take  the  word  of  God  for  their 
guide  in  all  matters  of  religion.  Wliat  rational  account 
can  bo  given  for  the  oppoiition  made  to  infant  baptifm 
from  time  immemorial  to  the  prefent,  while  females 
have  all  this  time  remained  in  the  unmolefted  enjoy- 
ment of  communion  ;  unlefs  it  be,  that  the  latter  is 
clearly  eftabliihed  in  the  New  Tefcamenl,  while  no  evi- 
dence can  be  found  for  the  former. 

Thofe  who  deny  infant  baptifm,  have  undoubtedly 
the  fame  tender  affe£lion  for  their  children  as  thofe 
who  pradtife  it  ;  nor  can  we  admit  that  they  feel  lefs 
concerned  for  their  eternal  falvation.  Hence  nothing, 
but  the  want  of  fcripture  to  fupport  it,  leads  them  to 
deny  its  validity. 

We  will  now  take  the  liberty  to  vary  Mr.  Edwards's 
third  Thefts,  and  put  female  communion  in  the  place  of 
adult  baptfm,  and  he  and  his  friends  will  then  fee  xXvi 
full  force  of  his  argument. 

Thefts  3. — "  From  this  view  of  the  fentiments  of  each, 
it  appears  that  both  parties  are  agreed  in  the  article  of 
female  cvrnmumon^  which  muft  therefore  be  fet  alide,  as 
a  matter  entirely  out  of  difpute  :  for  it  can  anfwer  no 
good  purpoie  for  one  to  prove  what  the  other  will  not 
deny."     Very  well  :  then  here  we  will  leave  it. 

Argument  2. — ^The  fecond  argument  which  Mr.  Ed- 
wards allows  the  Baptifts  to  bring  againffc  the  baptifm 
of  infants,  he  exprefles  as  follows  : 

"  The  fciipiiii-es  require  faith  and  repentance  as  requiftte 
t6  hapiifm^  hut  as  infants  cannot  have  ihefe,  they  are  not 
proper  fubj eels  of  baptifm.  Infants^  fay  the  Baptifls,  cannot 
believe^  cannot  repent  \  and  nonefljould  be  baptized  ivihout 
faith,  ^c:' 


I   64    3 

«<  The  moft  expeditious  way,  fays  Mr.  Edwards,  of 
dejlroy'wg  this  argument  is  this.  They  fay  the  fcriptures 
require  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptifm.  I  alk 
of  whom  ?  The  anfwer  mufl  be  of  adults  ,-  for  the  fcrip- 
tures never  require  them  of  infants  in  order  to  any 
thing."  My  Baptift  brethren  !  do  you  not  tremble 
for  the  fate  of  your  argument,  fince  it  has  fallen  into 
the  hands  of  fuch  an  Apollyon  ?  But  how  is  he  going 
to  v/ork  to  dtfroy  it  ?  Why  by  telling  you  that  all  the 
qualifications  required  by  the  inftitution,  have  refpe£t 
only  to  a  very  fmall  proportion  of  the  candidates  for 
that  ordinance,  and  that  no  qualifications  at  all  are  re- 
ouired  of  far  the  greater  part. 

How  does  Mr.  Edwards  prove  that  the  fcriptures  do 
not  require  faith  and  repentance  of  all  who  are  to  be 
admitted  to  baptifm  ?  Pie  does  it  in  this  way,  by  ad- 
ding the  word  adults.  But  it  muft  be  remembered, 
that  the  fcriptures  do  not  mention  either  adults  or  in- 
fants ;  but  prefcribe  thefe  qualifications  generally  and 
without  any  exception.  We  fhall  therefore  infift,  that 
the  want  of  thefe  qualifications  muft  forever  bar  the 
claim  of  all  others  to  this  ordinance,  whether  adults  or 
infants.  This  is  ground  we  (hall  by  no  means  give  up^ 
until  it  fhall  be  fairly  proved,  that  either  Chrift  or  his 
apoftles  did  a^ually  admit  perfons  to  baptifm,  who 
made  no  profefiion  of  faith  and  repentance.  This 
has  never  yet  been  done,  and  we  believe  it  never  can 
be.  However,  we  have  no  objedion  to  any  perfon's 
making  the  attempt. 

Mr.  Edwards,  after  working  over  this  argument,  fo  as 
to  fuit  himfelf  by  changing  and  diminifliing  the  force 
of  the  major  propofit.ion,  at  length  declares  it  "  a  glar* 
ing  Jophifm.^^  But  in  what  does  the  fophiftry  confift  ? 
In  his  own  management,  and  in  nothing  elfe.  The 
firft  ftaternent  reads  thus  ;  «  The  fcriptures  require 
faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptifm."  The 
meaning  is  generally  and  without  any  exception. 
When  akered  by  Mr.  Edwards,  it  ftands  thus  : — «  The 
fcriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  of  adults,  in 
order  to  baptifm."  It  is  this  addition  alone  which 
can  poffibly  expofe  the  argument  to  the  charge  of 
fophiftry.  Place  the  argument  upon  its  native  ground, 
and  it  will  ftand  thus  : 


C     65     ] 

"  The  fcriptnres  require,  in  ai!  ferfons^  faith  and 
repentance  as  reqnifite  to  baptifm  ;  but  fome  perfons 
have  not  faith  and  repentance  :  therefore,  all  impeni- 
tents,  whether  adults  or  infants^  are  not  proper  fubje^Vs 
of  baptifm."  The  reader  will  determine  for  himfelf, 
which  party  is  juftly  chargeable  with  fophiftry. 

After  altering  the  argument  as  above  defcribed, 
Mr.  Edwards  goes  on  to  prove  it  falfe.  "We  will  now 
briefly  examine  his  proof.  He  propofes  "  firft  to  fhow 
that  the  argument  is  entirely  fallacious  ;  fecond,  point 
out  wherein  its  fallacy  coniifts."  <<  1.  Of  the  fallacy 
of  this  argument.  The  principle  of  it  is,  that  infants 
are  excluded  from  baptifm,  becaufe  fomething  is  faid  of 
baptifm  which  will  not  agree  to  infants.  To  fee  there- 
fore the  tendency  of  this  argument  whether  it  will 
prove  on  the  fide  of  truth  or  error,  I  will  try  its  opera- 
tion on  thefe  four  particulars." 

1.  "  On  the  circumcifion  of  infants.  That  infants 
were  circumcifed,  is  a  fact.  That  they  were  circum- 
cifed  by  the  exprefs  command  of  God,  is  a  proof  of 
right,  &c."  This  will  not  be  difputed  by  any  one.  But 
how  does  this  prove  the  argument  of  the  Baptifts  to  be 
falfe  }  Why  in  this  way,  "  circumcifion,  as  it  was  a 
folemn  entering  into  the  church  of  God,  did  fix  an  ob- 
ligation on  the  circumcifed,  to  conform  to  the  laws  and 
ordinances  of  that  church."*  How  is  this  proved  ? 
From  Gal.  v.  3.  "  Every  man  •who  is  circumcifed  is  a 
debtor  to  do  the  xvhoie  Icnv"  What  is  the  inference  ? 
Here  it  follows  in  Mr.  Edwards's  own  words  ;  "  Then 
it  is  clear,  there  was  fomething  faid  of  circumcifion 
which  did  no  more  agree  to  infants,  than  if  it  had 
been  faid,  Repent  and  be  baptized."  Suppofing,  Mr. 
Edwards,  we  fhould  retort  a  little  of  your  logic  upon 
yourfelf,  and  affirm,  that  when  the  apoitle  fays.  Every 
man  nvho  is  circumcifed  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  ivhole  laiv^ 
he  mufk  mean,  every  adult  :  "  for  the  fcriptures  never 
require  fuch  obedience  of  infants  in  order  to  any  thing." 
Now,  Sir,  if  your  logic  is  good,  your  argument  is  good* 

*  It  would,  -we  believe, be  very  difficult  to  defcribe  the  ^ctit  foUmnity 
which  an  infant  of  eight  days  old  diiicoTtred,  at  this  tiane  of  iw.cDtrauct 
mto  the  church.  « 

f  2 


for  nothing  ,  For  the  fame  mode  of  realonln^  which 
ypu.haye  a<l€^te<l  to  deftroy  our  argument,  will  deftroy 
your  own.  Bjt  I  mean  to  liiow  its  fallacy  in  another 
way. 

■*  To  the  above  inference  our  author  adds,  «  In  this 
rerpe(5l,  baptifm  and  circumcifion  are  upon  a  level  *,  for 
there  is  fomething  faid  concerning  both,  which  will  by 
no  means  agree  to  infants.  Infants,  on  the  one  hand 
cannot  believe  and  repent  ;  and  thefe  are  connected 
with  baptifm  ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  infants  cannot 
become  debtors  ;  they  cannot  keep  the  law,  and  thefe 
are  connected  \vit!\  circumcilion."  If  I  fhould  reafoE 
after  this  manner,  I  ibould  expe<5l:  to  be  roundly  charged 
with  fophiftry.  «  Cotmeffed  with  baptifm  j"  "  connected 
with  Gircumcilion,"  fays  iVIr.  Edwards.  But,  Sir,  are 
they  conne<5Led  alike  t  MulV  not  every  perfon,  by  a 
moment's  reflection,  fee  that  they  are  totally  di3erent  } 
Baptifm  does  not  merely  "  fix  an  obligation"  to  believe 
and  repent  at  fom.e  future  period  ;  but  requires  a  pro- 
feffion  of  faith  and  repentance,  as  a  previous  qualifica- 
tion for  the  ordinance.  Circumcifion  did  not  require 
any  previous  obedience  to  the  law,  in  order  to  qualify  a 
perfon  for  that  rite.  The  utmoft  that  can  be  faid  of  it 
with  regard  even  to  fuch  adults  as  voluntarily  choofe 
k  for  tJiemfelves  is,  that  they  thereby  made  themfelves 
debtors  to  do  the  whole  b^v.  The  apolUe's  meaning  Is 
evidently  this,  that  thofe  who  ftill  infixed  upon  circum- 
cifion, as  that  was  one  of  the  firft  articles  of  the  legal 
difpenfation,  could  not  be  fuppofed  to  have  embraced 
the  .gofpel  5  and  if  they  depended  on  their  olvjdience 
to  the  law  for  juiVification,  which  was  implied  in  their 
holding  to  circumcifion,  they  mufl  then  confider  them- 
felves debtors  to  do  the  whole  law.  But  can  it  be  fup- 
pofed, that  the  mere  a6t  of  circunicifion,  performed  on 
a  he^.plefs  infant,  without  his  knowledge  or  confent, 
Ihould  make  him  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law  ?  It 
>$  evident  Paul  had  nothing  of  this  in  view,  when  he 
circviracifed  Timothy.  I  do  not  think  it  conflituted 
him  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.  But  had  he  chofen 
tkat  method  of  juftificatioja  in  prefei-eiue  to  th«  gt)f|)ej> 
it  <:ermiiJy  w^^yald. 


C     67     ] 

But  will  not  every  perfon  who  is  capable  of  reafoning 
upon  a  fubjedl,  fee  a  wide  difference  between  qualijica^ 
tions  previoujly  required  by  an  ordinance,  and  an  obligch- 
tisn  fixed  by  the  ordinance  itfelf  ?  The  great  Author  of 
being  fixes  an  obligation  upon  every  rational  creature 
as  foon  as  it  exifts,  to  lore  and  obey  him.  But  he  re- 
quires no  previous  exercifes  of  love  and  obedience  in 
order  to  qualify  us  for  exiftence.  It  hence  appears  that 
the  two  cafes  ftated  by  Mr.  Edwards,  as  being  entirely 
fimilar,  "  and  upon  a  level,"  are  totally  unlike.  There- 
fore, until  it  can  be  made  out  that  qualifications  for  an 
ordinance,  and  fubfequent  duties  ariling^/r;v;  it,  are  the 
fame  thing,  we  muft  fet  down  Mr.  Edwards  as  a 
fopliiuical  reafoner  !  But  tlie  whole  will  be  fubmitted, 
argiimentum  ad  judicium^  to  all  whom  it  may  concern."* 

Mr.  Edwards  next  argues  agalnft  the  g(->4'eral  require- 
ment of  faith  and  repentance,  from  the  "  baptiim  of 
Jefiio  Chrift."  He  fuppofes  as  *'  he  was  no  (inner,  he 
could  have  no  repentance  \  and  lince  he  needed  r\o  fal- 
vation  from  fin,  he  could  not  have  the  faith  of  God's 
elea." 

Are  there  any  Chriftians  who  fuppofe  that  JefusChrifb 
was  baptized  i\:>i  precifely  the  fame  reafons  as  thofe  by 
■wiiich  he  has  enjoined  the  duty  upon  his  people  ?  Or  in 
other  words,  wlieiher  iiis  baptifm  fignilied  the  fame 
things  which  our's  does  ^  If  not,  his  argument  is  noth- 
ing to  the  purpofe.  But  let  us  hear  Mr.Edwards's  own 
explanation.  <*  With  regard  to  the  ufe  of  baptifm,"  faith 
he,  "  I  coniider  it  in  the  light  of  a  nifan  of  grace,  and  I 
ifiew  it  in  the  fame  way  when  applied  to  infants.*'  (p. 
1B4.)  Does  Mr.  Edwards  fuppofe  that  the  baptifm  cf 
Chrift  was  a  mean  of  grace  to  him  ?  If  not,  it  muft 
certainly  be  very  different  from  the  baptifm  of  any 
other  perfon.  We  do  not  think  that  Jeius  Chrill  ftood 
in  need  of  any  fuch  means  of  grace  as  infant  baptifm. 
Mence  his  not  being  a  fubjeft  of  faith  and  repentance, 
cannot  with  any  fairnefs  be  urged  againft  the  general 
requirement  of  the  infiitution,  nor  be  pleaded  as  an 
exception  in  behalf  of  tinful  creatures. 

•  The  reader  will  cxcufc  ray  uCng  thcfe  logical  terms,  wkcri  he  i9C»h 
hA$  I  am  reafoning  with  »  ■^ery  logical  i»an» 


[     68     ] 

Mr.  Edwards  draws  his  third  argument  from  the 
«*  falvation  of  infants.'*  Thefe  he  prefumes  are  faved  y 
and  faved  too  without  either  faith  or  repentance. 

We  fufpe<^  he  may  find  this  argument  rather  unman- 
ageable. It  may  poffibly  take  a  greater  extent  of  lati- 
tude, and  fpread  much  wider  than  he  intended.  If  in- 
fants may  be  faved  without  faith  or  repentance,  (the 
qualifications  for  baptifm)  it  mufl  be  plain  that  all  in- 
fants may  be  faved.  If  this  be  an  argument  in  favour 
of  the  baptifm  of  fome  infants,  it  will  prove  equally  in 
favour  of  the  baptifm  of  all  infants,  whether  their  par- 
ents are  Chriftians,  heathens,  or  infidels,  unlefs  the 
poflibility  of  their  falvation  be  denied.  We  fee  but 
two  ways  (to  ufe  his  own  modeft  language)  to  fave  his 
•*  argument  from  perdition."  The  firft  is,  to  prove  that 
no  infants  will  be  faved,  but  fuch  as  defeend  from  be- 
lieving parents  :  or,  fecond,  to  extend  his  pradlice  of 
baptizing  them  to  all  infants,  without  exception.  For 
if  their  right  to  this  ordinance  is  to  be  fupported  upon 
the  pofiibiiity  of  their  falvation,  then  it  cannot  depend 
at  all  on  the  moral  condition  of  their  parents,  unlefs  their 
falvation  depends  on  that  likewife,  which  it  would  be 
abfurd  to  pretend.  We  only  add,  if  they  may  be  faved, 
though  incapable  of  the  qualifications  required  by  the 
baptifmal  inf^itution,  we  ihould  certainly  fuppofe  their 
baptifm  might  be  alfo  omitted,  unlefs  that  be  thought 
of  more  confequence  in  the  article  of  falvation  than  faith, 
and  repentance* 

Mr.  Edwards's  fourth  and  lafl:  argument  to  prove 
that  the  Baptifls  reafon  fophiftically  when  they  infifl  on 
z  profeflion  of  faith  and  repentance  in  order  to  baptifm, 
is  drawn  from  tlie  <*  temporal  fubflftence  of  infants." 
He  endeavours  to  nvake  out  that  our  argument  goes  to 
prove,  that  infants  ought  to  be  left  to  ftarve  to  death. 
His  reafoning  is  founded  on  Paul's  words  to  the  Thef^ 
falonians  ;  We  commanded  yoUf  faith  the  apoftie,  if  any 
ivould  not  nvorky  neither  Jhould  he  eat. 

Our  argument,  as  ftated  by  Mr.  Edwards,  is,  that 
**  the  fcriptures  require  faith  and  repentance  as  requi- 
site to  baptifm  ;  but  as  infants  cannot  have  thefe,  they 
ar«  not  proper  fubjeds."     This  argument  fuppofes,  that 


t     69    ] 

as  infants  eannoi  exhibit  the  fcriptural  qualifications, 
they  are  not  to  blame  ;  neither  are  they  injured  m  our 
view  in  not  being  admitted  to  baptifm.  But  the  cafe  of 
the  wilful  idler  is  every  way  different.  Ke  is  fuppofed 
to  poffefs  fufficient  ability  to  obtain  the  comfortable 
means  of  fubfiftence,  but  by  a  criminal  negligence  be- 
comes chargeable  to  the  church.  It  is  wonderful  to 
fee  what  this  do^lrlne  of  analogy  can  do  !  It  can  make  '^ 
fubjedVs  the  moft  antipodal,  appear  to  ftand  in  perfeft 
harmony  ;  and  fuch  as  in  their  nature  are  every  way 
unlike,  to  be  perfe(fHy  analogous. 

By  the  preceding  animadveriions  it  will  be  feen  that 
Mr.  Edwards's  foi!r  arguments,  when  weighed  in  aa 
even  balance,  are  found  wanting.  It  needs  only  to 
remove  their  extraneous  parts,  and  they  appear  at  once 
wholly  irrelevant  to  the  fubjed>.  The  argument  which 
he  oppofes  does  not  of  itfelf  prove  againft  the  truth,  nor 
has  it  any  unfriendly  afpeft  but  what  it  derives  from 
his  torturing  hand. 

His  next  attempt  is  to  fhow  wherein  the  falfity  of  this 
argument  confifts.     This,  he  informs  his  readers,  is  by 
our  placing   «  or.e  thing  in  the  premifes,  and  another 
in  the  conclufion."     But  the  reader  muft  not   forget 
that  he  ftated  the  premifes,  and  made  the  concluiion  to 
fuit  himfelf.     But,  wherein   do  they  difagree  ?    The 
Baptifts,  he  fays,  place  adults  in  the  premifes,  and  infants 
in  the  conclufion.     This    is   not    true.     The   Baptifts 
make  the  premifes  general,  and  the  conclufion  general. 
But  let  us  inquire  whether  Mr.    Edwards  does  not, 
by  his  own  ftatement,  get  more  in   his  conclufion  from 
circumcifion  than  can   be  found  in  the  premifes.     His 
argument  runs  thus  : — The  male  infants  of  Abraham  and 
his  pofterity,    were    by  God's    command    to   be    cir- 
cumcifed.     What  is  his  conclufion  ?    Therefore  the  in- 
fants of  fuch  as    belong  to  the  Chriftian  church,  both 
male?  and  females,  are  to  be  baptized.     Has  Mr.  Edwards 
here  got  no  more  in  his  conclufion  than  is  found  in  his 
premifes  ?    «  O  fliame,  where  is  thy  blufh  !" 

We  will  now  meet  Mr.  Edwards  upon  his  argument 
turn  ad  hominem^  and  fee  what  the  refult  will  be. 
«*  Now,  faith  be,  to  make  the  argument  of  the  Baptifi^s 


C     7«  •} 

tonfrftent,  we  rauft  place  infants  in  the  premii^s  as 
well  as  in  the  conclufion,  and  the  argument  will  ftand 
thus  : — ^The  fcriptAires  require  faith  and  repentance  of 
infants  in  order  to  baptifm  ;  but  infants  have  not  faith, 
&c.  therefore  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized." 

We  will  now  try  his  argument.  Mr.  Edwards  fu{^ 
tains  the  plea  in  favour  of  the  baptifm  of  infants  both 
male  and  female,  from  the  covenant  of  circumcilion  j 
but  by  that  covenant  no  female  infant  was  admitted  to 
circumcifion  ;  therefore  no  female  infant  muil  be  ad- 
mitted to  baptifm. 

Again,  *<  infants,  in  order  to  vidble  memberfliip> 
were  the  fubjefts  of  a  religious  rite  j"*  for  "  circumcif- 
ion was  n  religious  rite  ;"  but  female  infants  were  not 
the  fubjeifts  of  that  religious  rite,  therefore  female  in- 
fants were  not  admitted  to  memberfliip  in  the  viiible- 
church. 

Thus  we  fee,  that  Mr.  Edwards's  logic  will  prove  his 
own  arguments  falfe,  and  exclude  female  infants  both 
from  baptifm  and  from  viiible  membership  in  the 
church.  It  is  im.poilible  to  fupport  the  claim  of  female 
infants  to  baptifm  upon  the  covenant  of  circumcifion, 
without  getting  more  into  the  conclufion  than  can  be 
found  in  the  premifes.  This  may  not  be  ftigmatized  as 
a  <<  glaring  fophifm"  in  a  Pasdobaptifi:  ;  but  it  will  be 
remembered  what  Mr.  Edwards  has  faid  of  it  with  re* 
fpe(5t  to  the  Baptifis. 

We  will  now  fpend  a  few  minutes  in  examining  Mr. 
Edwards's  "  arguments  on  the  fide  of  infant  baptifm," 

"  Infant  baptifm,  faith  he,  is  to  be  proved  in  the 
fame  way  as  female  communion  •,"  /.  e.  by  "  inference 
and  analogy."  Well,  go  on,  Mr.  Edwards,  and  make 
your  ftatement,  "  In  the  firft  place,  it  is  a  fact  ac- 
knowledged by  the  Baptifts  themfelves,  that  infants 
were  at  an  early  period  confiituted  members  of  the 
church  of  God."  This,  Sir,  is  about  half  true.  No 
well  informed  Baptift  could  admit  it  in  this  unqualified 
{QXi{^  ;  for  it  fuppofes  that  infants,  females  as  well  as 
Kiales,  without  limitation  were  admitted :  this  wants 
proof.    But  proceed.     "  In  the  next  place,  I  (hall  pro- 

•  Candid  Rwfoui,  p.  39, 


C     71     ] 

^uce  proof,  that  they  have  a  right  to  be  fo  now  ;  ani 
that  the  conftitution  of  God  by  which  they  were  made 
«iembers,  has  not  been  altered  to  this  day."  Should  you 
fucceed,  Sir,  in  this  attempt,  thefe  confequences  will  in- 
evitably follow.  1.  That  circumciiion  is  (till  in  force  ; 
or,  that  the  (Conftitution  of  God,  which  cxprefsly  en* 
joined  circumcifion,  has  been  altered  ;  and  altered  too 
by  divine  authority,  fo  as  to  admit  of  baptifm  in  its 
room.  2.  If  this  conftitution  remains  unaltered,  female 
infants  have  no  place  in  it  :  for  they  were  neither  nam- 
ed nor  included  in  that  rite  by  which  you  tell  us  infants 
were  admitted  to  "  viftble  memberflnp."  (p.  S9.)  Have 
you  got  through  with  your  ftatement,  Sir  ?  Not  wholly. 
Then  pleafe  to  proceed.  "  In  the  laft  place,  I  fhall 
iay  down  this  dilemma,  which  will  conclude  the  whole 
bufmefs  ;  namely  : — As  infants,  by  a  divine  imalterab't 
tonJUtution^i  have  a  right  to  be  received  as  church  mem- 
bers, they  muft  be  received  either  with  baptifm  or 
without  it.  If  they  are  not  to  be  received  without 
baptifm,  then  the  confequence  is,  that  they  muft  be 
baptized,  becaufe  they  muft  be  received."  Infants  muit 
be  received,  and  therefore  muft  be  baptized,  and  they 
muft  be  baptized  becaufe  they  muft  be  received.  The 
^potency  of  this   reafoning  no  man  will  dare  to  difpute. 

This  dilemma  viev/ed  at  a  diftance,  lias.,  to  be  fure,  a 
frightful  afpeel  ;  but  upon  a  nearer  infpeclion,  its  for- 
midable appearance  vaniflies  away.  The  Turn  of  it  is 
this,  That  if  infants  have  a  right  by  the  divine  infiitution  to 
mernhcrfljip  in  the  Chrifiian  churchy  then  ihey  muji  be  ad" 
fniited  according  to  that  injVitution. 

If  Mr.  Ed  wards,  by  this  unalterable  conftitution,  means 
the  covenant  of  circumciiion,  as  he  moft  certainly  does, 
we  wiQi  to  know  whether  female  infants  were  admitted 
to  memberfiiip  by  any  religious  rite,  agreeably  to  that 
conftitution  .''  If  fo,  what  was  that  rite  ?  If  that  confliiU" 
tion  faid  nothing  about  female  infants,  and  it  was  in  its 
nature  unalterable ^  we  wifli  to  be  informed  how  therjr 
came  by  the  right  they  now  enjoy  in  the  Chriftiati 
church,  I  am  afraid  after  all,  Sir,  your  argument  will 
prove  fatal  to  the  memberftiip  of  thefe  poor  little  fe- 
male Infants  !  Do,Sir,have  a  little  compaflion  on  them, 
and  try  fome   wa/  or  other  to  provide  for  their  mem- 


C    72    ] 

berth ip.  It  will  be  in  vain,  however,  to  tell  us  that  in 
the  inftitution  of  the  gofpel  church  there  is  neither  male 
mr  female i  that  they  are  all  one  in  Chrijl  Jefus.  This  is 
not  the  unalterable  conftitution  on  which  you  defend 
their  right.  And  it  is  true  only  of  fuch  as  are  believers, 
fuch  as  are  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Chrijl  Jefus  ;* 
not  fuch  as  are  his  merely  by  circumcifion  or  baptifm. 
Thefe  infants,  if  they  are  any  way  interefted  in  Chrift*s 
falvation,  have  no  faith ^  by  your  own  acknowledgment ; 
for  you  have  fuppofed  them  incapable  of  it. 

In  this  firft  argument,  Mr.  Edwards  fuppofes  he  has 
eftablifhed  the  right  of  infant  memberfhip  in  the  Chrif 
tian  church.  But  the  utmoft  that  can  be  fairly  deduced 
from  his  arguing  is,  that  male  infants  were  admitted  by 
divine  appointment  to  memberfhip  in  the  Jewifh  church. 
Two  points,  which  are  all-important,  yea,  which  are  the 
"verjftne  qua  non  to  fupport  his  fcheme,  he  has  left  to- 
tally without  proof,  viz.  That  the  Jewifh  and  Chriftian 
churches  are  the  fame  ;  and  that  female  infants  were 
admitted  to  memberfhip  by  divine  appointment.  If 
Mr.  Edwards  has  proved  any  thing  more  than  I  have 
allowed  him,  I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  difcern  it. 
The  refult  which  he  has  formed  upon  his  own  argu- 
ment, will  {how  us  what  he  fuppofes  he  has  done,  and 
what  courfe  he  means  to  take  in  future.  "  Thefe  two 
parts  of  the  proportion,  faith  he,  being  evinced  j  name- 
ly, 1.  The  church  memberfhip  of  infants  j  and,  2. 
Their  admif!ion  to  it  by  a  religious  rite  j  the  whole 
propofition  which  I  undertake  to  maintain,  and  to  lay 
as  the  ground-work  from  which  to  conclude  the  bap- 
tifm of  infants,  is  this, — God  has  conflituted  in  his 
church  the  memberfhip  of  infants,  and  has  admitted 
them  to  it  by  a  religious  rite."f 

The  reader  will  here  fee  the  ground-work  of  infant 
haptifm  J  that  it  is  placed  at  the  diftance  of  near  two 
thoufand  years  from  the  gofpel  difpenfation  !  that  it 
does  not  look  to  that  for  its  fupport,  but  depends  en- 
tirely upon  the  unalterable  conftitution  of  the  Jewifh 
church. 

From  this  data  Mr.  Edwards  proceeds  to  his  fecond 
argument,  as  follows  :  «<  The  church  memberfhip  of  infants 

*  G»l  ui.  26,  a8.  t  Page  43. 


t     73     3 

«;«/  never  Jet  mfide  by  Gcd  or  man  ;   but  continues  in  f^rety 
under  the  fanclion  of  God,,  to  the  prefent  day." 

In  fupport  of  this  argument,  he  realbns  thus  :  «« Ev- 
ery one  knows,  that  what  was  once  done,  and  never 
undone,  muft  of  courfe  remain  the  fame  :  And  that 
what  was  once  granted,  and  never  revoked,  muft  needs 
continue  as  a  grant."  (p.  45.)  "  That  whatever  God 
has  cftabHCHed  Ihould  be  fuppofed  to  continue,  though 
vre  could  bring  no  proof  of  its  continuance,  unlefs  we 
%re  plainly  told,  that  he  has  ordered  it  otherwife."  It 
would  not  do,  I  fuppofe,  in  this  inftance,  Mr.  Edwards, 
to  difprove  its  continuance  by  '*  analogy"  or  "  infer- 
ence !"  Nothing  but  being  " plainly  told,^  can  be  ad- 
mitted in  this  cafe. 

To  fave  us  the  trouble,  however,  of  proving  that  this 
grant  is  vacated^  Mr.  Edwards  has  generoufly  volun- 
teered his  fervices  to  prove  that  it  is  not.  This  proof 
will  now  be  examined.  "  There  was,  fays  he,  only  one 
point  of  time,  in  which  it  is  even  fuppofed  the  church 
memberfhip  of  infants  was  fet  aiide  ;  and  that  was 
when  the  Gentiles  were  taken  into  a  vilible  church 
ftate.** 

Here  Mr.  Edwards  is  thought  to  have  ftumbled  upoa 
the  very  threlhold.  He  has  taken  for  granted,  what 
cannot  be  admitted  without  the  mod  clear  and  une- 
quivocal proof ;  that  is,  that  the  apoftles  and  difci- 
pies  of  Jefus,  with  their  Mafter  at  their  head,  did  not 
conftitute  a  neiv  church,  purely  upon  gofpel  principles, 
but  thas  they  were  incorporr.ted  with  the  old  Jewilh 
church,  and  conducfted  in  all  things  a^^^cably  to  its 
unalterable  co?iJlituiicn.  Nothing  in  our  view  can  be 
farther  from  the  truth  than  this  fentiment.  It  ftands 
condemned  by  all  the  fadts  recorded  in  the  New  Tefta- 
'  ment.  But  having  treated  this  iubje£l  more  at  large 
in  a  preceding  part  of  this  work,  the  reader  is  referred 
to  that  for  proof  bf  what  is  here  aiTerted.*  It  is  fuiH- 
cient  here  to  fay,  If  Chrift,  with  more  than  feventy  dif- 
tiples,  adding  by  his  authority,  totally  independent  of 
the  Jewifh  church  and  its  leaders,  did  not  conftitute  the 
Chriftian  charch,  we  can  have  no  idea  of  its  exiftencc 

•  Jcc  Scift.  IV. 
G 


C    7t     ] 

At  any  other  period.  To  fay  that  Chrift  and  his  dirci- 
pies  were  united  as  members  of  that  old  church  ever 
after  Jefus  commenced  his  public  miniftry,  and  called 
thefe  difciples  to  follow  him  as  their  head  and  leader, 
would  be  to  contradi6t  the  whole  hiflory  of  fa(Sts  re- 
corded by  the  Evangelifts. 

Mr.  Edwards  fuppofes  the  *«  moft  carnal  Jew  that 
€ver  fat  in  the  regions  of  darknefs  could  not  give  a 
more  frigid  account  of  circumcifion  than  Mr.  Booth 
has  done."  It  is  believed  he  would  be  puzzled  to  find 
a  Jew,  either  in  the  regions  of  darknefs  or  light,  when 
Chrift  was  upon  earth,  or  at  any  period  iince,  who 
would  acknowledge  with  him  that  the  Jewifli  and 
Ci"!Tiftian  churches  are  the  fame.  No ;  they  know 
that  they  and  their  fathers  hated  and  oppofed  Jefus  of 
Nazareth  and  his  doctrine  ^  that  they  perfecuted  him 
and  his  followers.  Yet  Mr.  Edwards  tells  us,  that  "  the 
firft  Gentile3  of  whofe  calling  we  read  are  faid  to  have 
been  added  to  the  church  ;  but  there  was  no  church 
exifting  to  which  they  could  be  added,  but  the  ancient 
Jeivifo  church,  of  which  all  the  apoftles  and  difciples  of 
our  Lord  were  members."  Is  there  another  man  upon 
earth  that  can  believe  this  ?  that  can  entertain  fuch  a 
degrading  thought  of  Jefus  and  his  difciples,  as  not  to 
acknowledge  them  to  be  the  true  gofpel  church  ?  We 
know  that  the  Jewifh  priefls  and  people  difowned  them, 
and  treated  them  as  the  enemies  of  their  church  j  but 
who  would  have  ever  thought  that  a  man,  profeffing  to 
be  a  Chriftian  minifter,  could  be  fo  attached  to  the  old 
Jewifh  fyftem,  as  to  deny  Chrift  and  his  difciples  the 
honour  of  compofing  and  conftituting  the  neiu  Chriflian 
church  /  Let  every  perfon  who  can  read  the  New  Tef- 
tament,  read  it  carefully  and  prayerfully,  and  fee  if  he 
can  find  a  iingle  hint  in  the  whole  account,  that  ever 
the  apoftles  and  difciples  of  Jefus  were  in  any  fenfe 
connected  with  that  church,  after  ihey  became  the  fol- 
lowers of  Chrift.  Mr.  Edv/ards  fays,  thefe  «  apoftles 
and  difciples  were  members  of  the  ancient  Jewifh 
rburch."  The  evangelift  John  fays,  The  Jews  hod 
a^ra-ti  tffr:£^^^-    f'.-y"  '/'  -'-'v    ?-■;«»  ilid  eo7iftJs  thai  he  ijuas  tkf 


t  *^^  ] 

^rifl\  he  fi^uhl  he  put  eut  of  the  f-jnagoguj.^  Did  not  tEe 
apoftles  and  difciples  coiifcfs  Cbriit  openly  ?  Or  did 
they  difTemble,  and  fo  keep  their  place  in  the  Jewiih 
church  ?  We  leave  the  dilemma  to  Mr.  Edwards  and 
his  friends. 

Will  the  apoftles  of  Jefus  thank  Mr.  Edwards  for 
afTociating  them  with  his  "  deadly  enemies  ?"  Or  im- 
plicitly charging-  them  with  the  duplicity  of  the  Phari- 
fees,  who  are  f^iid  to  bclisvc  on  him,  but  who  loved  the 
praife  of  men  more  than  the  praife  of  God,  and  there- 
fore did  not  confefs  him  openly  ?  The  Jews  were  fo 
far  from  acknowledging  Chriil:  and  his  followers  as  be- 
ing members  of  their  church,  that  they  exultingly  told 
the  man  whom  Jefus  had  reftored  to  his  light,  Thou  art 
his  difciple,  but  ive  are  Mofes*  ilifap/es.  We  hnoiv  that 
God  fprtke  unfa  Mcfes  :  as  for  this  felloiv^  ivcknoiv  not  from 
wh,^tice  he  is.^ 

It  v;ould  not  help  Mr.  Edwards^s  argument  to  fay^ 
tliat  the  Jewilh  church  now  confifled  of  fuch  only  as 
embraced  Chrifr  and  his  doclrine.  This  would  but 
deceive  his  readers  ;  for  this  was  not  the  Jewiih,  but 
the  gofpel  church.  This  was  compofed  of  converts  iroax 
Judaifm  to  Chri-lianity.  But  if  Judaifm  and  Chriftianity 
are  the  fame,  it  would  be  nonfenfe  to  talk  of  being 
converted  from  one  to  the  other.  For  a  Jew  to  be- 
come a  Chriflian,  a  much  greater  alteration  was  necef- 
fary  than  merely  to  change  his  "  clothing'*  and ."  di- 
et ;"  (p.  46,  48)  hi?  heart  muft  be  changed,  or  he 
would  be  no  better  than  a  Judas. 

For  Mr.  Edwards  therefore  to  prove  that  male  in- 
fants had  a  right  to  memberfhip  in  the  Jcwifh  ciiurch, 
is  proving  what  nobody  denies  *,  and  will  alford  no 
fupport  to  his  argument,  unlefs  it  can  be  proved,  that 
the  two  churches  are  one  and  the  fame.  This  he  has 
indeed  averted,  but  has  given  no  fufficient  proof  of  it. 
Nor  will  any  man  who  is  inquiring  after  truth  be  fatif- 
fied  by  having  it  proved,  that  there  were  fome  points 
cf  agreement  •,  fome  analogy  between  the  two  churches. 
It  mull  be  proved,  that  Chrift  and  his  difciples  did 
a6lHaily  unite  with  the  old  Jewifli  church,  and  became 

•  John  ix.  21.  f  John  ix.  a8,  29. 


[     76     ] 

one  with  that  body,  or   elfe  his  argument  will  prove 
nothing  to  the  point  in  diipute. 

Nor  will  it  help  his  caiife  to  fay,  "  that  the  right  of 
infants  in  that  church  was  never  fet  afide  either  by  God 
or  man."  The  queftion  is  not,  whether  infants  were 
admitted  fb  the  Jewilh  church,  but  whether  Chrift  has 
inftituted  the  raemberfbip  of  infants  in  the  gofpel 
chvrth.  Let  this  be  proved,  and  the  difpute  will  be 
at  £n  end. 

Mr.  Edwards  feems  willing  to  let  go  every  body  and 
every  thing  vhich  belonged  to  that  church,    buc  the 
member Oiip  of  infants.      He   acknowledges   that  the 
freat  body  of  that  "  church  were,  upon  the  whole,  the 
deadly    enemies  of  Chrift   and   his    do(ftrine  ;"     that 
"  feveral  inAitntions  did  ceafe,  and  fome  new  ones  were 
ordained,"  but  his  darling  point  was  not  afFedted.  (p. 
46,  62.)      How   v/onderfui  it   is,  that   in   this  general 
wi*eck,  he  fhould  be  fo  fortunate  as  to  fave  the  mem- 
berfhip  of -.infants.     Not  only  to  fecure  it  in  its  ancient 
form,  but  to  extend  it  to  females  as  well  as  males.     He 
had  indeed  anticipated   this   difficulty,   in  carrying  for- 
ward liis   famenefi  of  memberlhip.     But   what  are  the 
greateft  mountains  before  fuch  a  Zerubbabel  ?    They 
are  at  once  levelled  to  a  plain.     He  acknowledges  that 
women,  (the  antithelis   required   him  to  have  faid,  fe- 
male infants)  were  not  admitted  into  the  JewiOi  church 
by  any  initiating  rite,  and    concludes,   «'  that  whereas 
the  church  ftate  among  the  Jews   included  males  both 
adult   and    infant,   fo  to  the   Gentile  church,  together 
with  thefe,  there  is,  by  the  esprefs  order  of  Chd^  the  iuper- 
addition  of  females."     But   pray,  fir,    does  this  exprtfs 
^rder  of  Goi  include   female  infants?     Or   docs   it   in- 
clude   only  believing  women  ?    If  there  be  any  "  ex- 
prefs  order   of  God"   refpecling   female   infants  in  the 
New  Teftament,  do,  in  your  great  wifdom,  be  fo  good  as 
to  point  us  to  it.     If  Mr.  Edwards  knows  of  any  exprefs 
trder  of  God,   he  can    have  no  difiiculty  in  pr^fenting  it 
to  our  complete  convliTtion. 

We  know  that  believing  ivomen  are  exprefsly  men- 
tioned j  but  this  does  nothing  to  eftablifh  his  argument, 
It  is  faid  of  the  Samaritans,  that  luhi^n  fh--;  believed  Philip 


C    77     ] 

preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  Gody  and  the 
name  of  J'efus  Chrift^  they  ivere  baptized  both  ??ien  and 
nvomen.  Here  we  have  exprefs  mention  of  women,  but 
not  of  children. 

It  will  appear,  no  doubt,  to  the  candid  reader,  that  to 
prove  the  exiftence  of  any  right  under  the  Jewifh 
difpenfation,  is  not  to  prove  the  exiftence  of  the 
fame  right  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation  ;  the  qualifi- 
cations for  memberfliip  under  the  latter,  being  fo  very 
diiFerent  from  thofe  required  by  the  former,  that  no 
plea  of  right  can  be  argued  from  one  to  the  other.  It 
might  as  well  be  argued,  that  becaufe  a  fmall  borough 
in  the  county  of  Cornwall  in  England  has  a  right  to 
fend  a  member  to  the  Britifh  parliament,  therefore  a 
town  containing  the  fame  number  of  inhabitants  in 
MafTachufetis  has  a  right  to  {<<t\'\(i  a  member  to  Con- 
grefs. 

"VVe  will  now  proceed  to  Mr.  Edwards's  proof  that 
the  memberfhip  of  infants  was  carried  forward  into 
the  Gentile  church.  His  firft  argument  is  taken  from 
Matt.  xxi.  43.  «  Therefore  fay  I  unto  you,  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  (hall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to 
a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof.'*  The  quef- 
tion  here  is,  what  was  taken  from  the  Jews,  and  what 
was  given  to.  the  Gentiles  ?  Was  it  the  old  Jewilh 
church  privileges  ?  or,  was  it  the  gofpel  difpenfation, 
which  Chrift  called  the  kingdom  of  God  I  What  did 
John  mean  when  he  thus  addrefled  the  Jews  who  at- 
tended his  miniftry,  Repenty  for  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at 
hand  P  Did  he  mean  that  the  JewiOi  church  ftate  was 
at  hand  ?  This  would  agree  with  Mr.  Edwards's  defi- 
nition. Muft  it  not  be  manifeft  to  every  candid  mind 
that  he  meant  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  containing  the 
fpiritual  kingdom  of  Chrift  ? 

It  may  be  afked  how  this  could  be  taken  from  them, 
unlefs  they  firft  had  it.  We  anfwer,  this  kingdom  was 
among  then^  although  it  did  not  come  by  obfervation. 
The  gofpel  with  all  its  privileges  was  firft  publilhed  to 
the  Jews.  And  notwithftanding  they  had  delivered 
Chrift  to  be  crucified,  yet  he  commanded  iiis  difciples,, 

G  2 


[     TS     ] 

after  he  rofe  from  tlie  dead,  to  preach  repentance  and 
remiffion  of  fins  to  all  nations,  bcginnutg  at  Jer-jfaUm. 

Here  they  began  ;  and  on  the  day  of  pemecoft 
three  thoufand  fouls  v/ere  converted,  and  added  to  the 
church.  We  appeal  to  the  confcientious,  (and  we  be- 
lieve there  are  many  fuch  among  tlie  Pajdobaptifts,) 
whether  the  church  here  mentioned  was  the  old  Jew- 
ifh  church,  or  the  body  of  believers  which  had  been 
colle6led  under  the  perfonal  miniftry  of  Chriil:  ?  The 
latter  mull  be  admitted  ;  nor  can  we  think  there  would 
be  a  diiienting  voice.  But  to  admit  this,  would  ruin 
Mr.  Edwards's  whole  plan.  For  he  has  no  other  fjp- 
port  for  the  memberihip  of  infants  but  what  is  de- 
rived  from  the  union  of  thefe  two  churches. 

The  reader  will  now  look  at  his  explanation.  "  The 
taking  of  the  kingdom,  fiiith  he,  from  the  Jews  and 
giving  it  to  the  GentileSj  denotes  ;  1-  The  ceafing  of  a 
regular  church  ftate  among  the  Jews.  And  this-ac- 
tually  took  place,  by  the  deftru(51:ion  of  fome,  and  the 
difperiion  of  others  who  did  not  receive  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chriil  as  the  fent  of  God  j  while  thofe  who  did  receive 
him  -ivere  at  length  removed  from  Judea,  and  by  de- 
grees loft  the  name  of  Jew,  in  that  of  Chriftian."  (p* 
47.)  This  account  looks  pretty  plaufible  j  but  it  has 
one  very  eiTential  defect.  It  happens  to  difagree  in 
almoft  every  point  with  matter  of  laci:  ;  for  inftead  of 
the  derrruclion  and  difperiion  of  the  Jews  at  the  fetting 
up  of  the  gofpel  church,  it  was  the  Chriftians  that  were 
difperfed  and  fcattered  abroad  by  the  perfecution  of  the 
Jews.*  «  Thofe  who  did  not  receive  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift,''  at  this  time,  and  for  many  years  after,  remained 
in  the  fame  church  order  as  before  the  appearance  of 
Chrift.  Nor  is  it  fa6l,  that  the  name  of  Jew  was  loft 
in  that  of  ChryTtan.  That  name  and  that  church  ftill 
continued  for  nearly  thirty  years  after  the  disciples 
^iuere  f.yft  called  Christians  at  Antioch. 

It  \yould  feem  by  this  confufed  ftatement  which  Mr.. 
Edwards  has  made,  that  the  change  from  Judaifm  to. 
Chrifliaiiity  was  very  gradual  j  that  it  took  nearly  fortj^ 

•  A<5l3  vyji.  r    • 


[     T9     ] 

years  to  ly.lng  It  about.  That  the  Chriftlans  were 
united  with  the  Jews  all  the  time  until  their  dilperiion, 
(p.  4-7.)  Nor  was  the  change,  according  to  him,  of  any 
conlequence  when  it  had  taken  place.  It  confiiled  prin- 
cipally in  the  abolition  of  a  few  Jewifli  rites,  and  the 
adoption  of  others  in  tlieir  room,  both  meaning  the 
fame  thing  :  *'  for  rituals  are  to  a  church,  as  diet  and 
ornaments  are  to  a  man."  (p.  48.)  Thefe  do  not  efTen- 
tially  alter  him. 

Mr.  Edwards  argues  fecondly  from  Rom.  xl,  23,  2i. 
from  the  breakinfj:  off  of  the  Jews  from  t]\e  olive  tree  ; 
and  the  grafting  in  of  the  Gentiles.  His  explanation 
of  this  figurative  paflage  is  as  follows.  "  1.  The  olive 
tree  is  to  denote  a  vilible  church  ftate.  2.  The  Jews 
are  faid  to  be  natural  branches,  becaufe  they  defcended 
from  Abraham,  to  whom  the  promife  was  made  :  I  ivill 
be  a  God  to  ikee^  and  to  thy  feed.  3.  The  Gentiles  were 
brought  into  the  fame  church  ftate  from  which  the  Jews 
were  broken  off,"  &c. 

Upon  the  above  v^'e  obferve — If  the  breaking  off  of 
the  Jews  from  the  olive  tree  denoted  the  diffolution  of 
their  church  ftate,  then  the  fadls  will  not  correfpond 
with  each  other  ;  for  the  Gentiles  were  grafted  into 
the  Chriftiarj  church  long  before  the  viilbility  of  the 
Jewifh  church  ceafed. 

The  perfecution  and  martyrdom  of  Stephen,  appears  to 
have  taken  place  the  fame,  or  the  year  following  the  cru- 
cifixion of'ourLord.  On  this  perfecution  it  is  faid  the 
church  w.-s  all  fcattered  abroad^  excepting  the  apoftles. 
Was  this  the  old  Jewiili  church  that  was  perfecuted  ? 
If  {o^  we  ailc  who  perfecuted  them  ?  Did  the  few 
Chriftians  perfecute  the  whole  Jewifn  church  and  fcat- 
ter  them  ?  What  abfurdities  follow  upon  admitting  the 
arguments  of  our  opponents.  This  perfecution  was  over- 
ruled for  the  fpread  of  the  gofpel  among  the  Gentiles. 
Philip  went  down  to  Samaria.  Saul  was  converted 
at  Damafcus  and  b'  gan  to  preach  ;  and  not  long  after 
there  was  a  church  planted  at  Antioch  in  Syria.  From, 
this,  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  fent  into  Aha  Minor* 
Here  they   found   fome  of  their   countrymen,  and  ea- 


[     80     ] 

ileaYOured  to  convince  them  that  Jefus  was  the  MeHiah* 
Some  believed,  but  the  greater  part  oppofed  and  blaf- 
phemed.  Then  Paul  aru]  Bartuihas  ivased  bold  and 
faidy  It  was  necejpiry  that  the  ivcrd  of  God  fjould  Jirjl  have 
been  fpoken  to  you  ;  but  feeing  ye  put  it  from  you^  and  judge 
yourfehes  univcrthy  of  everlajling  hfe^  lo,  ive  turn  to  the 
Gentiles  ;  forfo  hath  the  Lord  commanded  us.*  In  this  way- 
it  appears,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  taken  from 
the  Jews  and  given  to  the  Gentiles. 

Upon  the  olive  tree  Mr.  Edwards  obferves,  "  3. 
The  Gentiles  were  brought  into  the  fame  church  ftate 
from  which  the  Jews  were  broken  oftV  The  objcft  of 
this  ftatement  is  eafily  difcerned.  It  is  made,  no  doubt, 
to  fave  the  memberfliip  of  infants.  He  has  no  difficul- 
ty in  admitting  that  thisy^w^  church  fate  is  altered  in 
almoft  every  thing  elfe.  But  the  memberfhip  of  in- 
fants muft  be  retained,  <<  although  we  have  no  proof  of 
its  continuance,  tmlefs  we  are  plainly  told  to  the  con- 
trary." But  this  whole  ftatement  appears  to  be  crro- 
xieous. 

If  the  good  "  olive  tree  is  tO  denote  a  vifible  church 
fbate,"  tfie  wild  olive  tree  mufl:  denote  the  fame. 
The  antitheirs  certainly  requires  this  conftruftion.  But 
was  there  any  thing  among  the  Gentiles  at  this  time 
•which  might  be  called  a  church  fkate  ?  We  can  forn^ 
no  fuch  idea.  The  G«ntiles  were  confidered  as  branch- 
es of  one  tree  before  believing,  and  of  another  after- 
Thefe  two  trees  are  both  called  olives,  and  diftinguifhed 
only  by  their  qualities  ;  the  one  a  good,  the  other  a 
wild  olive.  By  the  good  olive  tree,  therefore,  we  rather 
think  Chrift  himfelf  is  intended.  If  ^o^  it  may  be 
alked,  how  can  it  be  faid,  that  the  unbelieving  Jews 
were  branches,  (as  they  muft  have  been  in  fbme  fenfe)^ 
or  they  could  not  be  broken  off  I  We  anfwer.  They 
were  fo  confidered,  in  confequence  of  their  vifible  pro- 
feffion.  As  a  nation,  they  profsfted  to  be  his  people. 
The  believing  fpiritual  branches  continued  in  Chrift  ; 
and  were,  under  his  immediate  direction,  formed  into  a 
fpiritual  church  in  vifible  golpel  order,  and  the  unbe- 
Heving  branches  cut  off  and  rejected.     This  reprefeista'^ 

*  AAs  xiii.  46, 47* 


[    81    3 

tion  agrees  wkh  Chrift's  ovrn  words  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  John,  //arm,  faith  he,  ihe  true  vine  ;  my 
Father  is  ike  hujhandnmn.  Ever-^  branch  in  me  that  hear- 
rth  net  fruit  he  taketh  aiuay  ;  and  every  branch  thtit  bear^ 
eth  fruit,  he  pvrgeth  it,  that  it  may  bring  forth  more  fruit. 

Here  are  two  kinds  of  branches,  and  both  faid  to  be 
in  Chrift  j  one  barren,  the  other  fruitful.  The  friiit- 
lefs  branches  were  in  him  only  by  profeflion  ;  the 
fruitful  branches  v.'ere  united  to  him  by  a  living  faith 
and  onenefs  of  nature. 

By  the  ivlld  olive  tree,  we  think  the  npoftle  meant  to 
reprefent  Adao),  as  the  original  ftock  from  whence  all 
rhe  huDian  family  fprang  ;  and  all  who  are  not  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  grafted  into  Chrift  the  true  olive,  ftill 
liand  in  this  wild  or  natural  ftock. 

Chrift  is  the  holy  rooty  which  fuppiies  the  branches  with 
all  the  real  holineis  they  pofTefs.  From  him  each  living 
member  will  forever  draw  fap  and  nourilhment.  The 
apoftlcs  were  th^frft  fruits  of  Chrift's  perfonal  miniftry  ; 
they  were  made  hcly  by  virtue  of  their  union  with  him. 
If  the  firfl  fruits,  faith  the  apoftle,  be  holy,  the  hmip  alf» 
*will  he  ho'y.  As  the  firft  fruits  were  accounted  a 
pledge  of  the  future  harveft,  fo  were  thefe  firft  converts 
coniiJered  as  a  fample  of  the  church,  which  fliould  be 
gathered  under  the  miniftry  of  the  word.  But  to  con- 
fider  Abraham  arthe  rcot,  as  many  do,  is  to  place  the 
branches  upon  a  Very  incompetent  ftock.  Good  man  I 
all  the  real  holinefs  he  ever  had,  was  derived  from  him 
\y\vo  is  the  Root  and  Offspring  of  David  :  nor  could 
he  conimunicate  the  fmalleft  degree  of  that  to  his  pof- 
terlty.  Abraham,  like  the  wife  virgins,  had  no  oil  to 
impart. 

It  w:\s  unbelief  tliat  firft  procured  tlie  excifion  of  the 
Jewifti  branches.  This  was  the  caufe  of  the  gofpel's 
being  taken  from  them,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  thereof.  The  Gentiles  individually 
ftand  in  this  oli\e  tree  by  faith.  An  unbelieving  Gen- 
tile can  no  more  ftand  in  the  good  olive  tree  than  an 
unbelieving  Jew.  And  they  alfo,  if  they  abide  not  fill  in  un- 
belief fhall  be  grafted  in  :  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in 
agmtu     It  hence  follows,  that  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile 


[     85     ] 

tan  have  any  union   with   the  good  olive  tree,  bu:   hy 
faith. 

If  fome  unbelieTers  were  broken  off",  no  reafon  can  be 
affigned  why  any  fliould  be  retained.  If  none  were  re- 
tained but  real  believers  (which  we  have  every  reafon 
to  fuppofe  v/as  the  c-Je)  then  infants  were  not  retained, 
as  they  are  not  believers,  by  Mr.  Edwards's  own  con- 
ceffion.  All  his  arguing  therefore  from  this  paflage 
will  be  of  no  avail,  unlefs  he  can  prove,  that  notwith- 
ftanding  fome  unbelievers  were  broken  offV  yet  ft  ill  a' 
vaft  proportion  were  retained.  The  idea  is  almoft  too- 
abfurd  to  exift,  even  in  fuppofition.  The  refle<Sting 
reader  will  here  afk,  Did  not  infmts  and  minors  make 
a  large  proportion  of  JewiQi  branches  which  were- 
broken  off  ?  Is  it  not  faid  exprefsly,  that  the  Gentiles 
who  are  grafted  in,  Jlaml  h  faith  P  But  Gentile  infants 
have,  no  faith  :  hov/  then  do  they  ftand  in  this  good= 
olive  tree  ? 

It  is  worthy  of  obfervation,  that  the  Gentiles  are  faid 
to  be  grafted  in  contrary  to  nature.  It  is  fo,  in  almoft  every- 
fenfe.  The  whole  of  religion  is  contrary  to  our  de- 
praved natures  j  but  more  efpecially  in  the  following 
things.  1.  "We  never  graft  a  fcion  but  upon  the  prin- 
ciple of  its  being  better  than  the  ftock  into  which  it  is 
fet.  2.  The  fcion,  thwigh  grafted  into  another  (lock, 
and  nouriOied  by  it,  ftill  retains  its  ov/n  nature,  and: 
bears  its  own  fruit.  3  A  bafe  ftock  is  rendered  valu- 
able, in  confequence  of  the  good  fruit  produced  by  the 
engrafted  part.  But  in  grafting  in  the  Gentiles,  all  is 
reverfed.  They  are  not  chofen  on  account  of  their  own 
excellenc)r,  but  on  Chrift's  account.  By  being  grafted 
into  this  holy  (lock,  their  nature  is  fo  changed,  that 
they  bring  forth  the  fruits  of  holinefs.  They  add  noth- 
ing to  the  elTential  value  of  the  ftoek  into  which  they 
are  grafted,  but  receive  all  their  real  excellence  from  it. 

Before  we  difinir:^  this  argument  it  may  be  proper  to 
anfv/er  one  or  two  objeclions  1.  L' Chrift  be  intended 
by  the  olive  tree,  why  does  the  apoftle  call  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews,  who  could  have  no  real  intereft  in  him, 
nittiral  branches  ?  Aiifwer  :  Thefe  Jews  had  no  real 
intereft  in  him  •,   but  as  they  profelTed  to  be  his  people,. 


L     83     ] 

•tliey^'ere  confidered  as  natural  branches;  that  is,  it 
•was  much  more  natural  to  fuppofe,  that  the  Jews  who 
had  the  oracles  of  God  committed  to  them,  and  confe- 
quently  were  better  informed  refpe^ting  the  Melliah, 
ihould  believe  on  him,  than  the  idolatrous  Gentiles,  who 
had  not  thefe  advantages.  2.  If  Chriit  be  intended  by  this 
figure,  vrhy  does  the  apoflle,  fpeaking  of  the  Jev/s,  call 
him  their  own  olive  tree  F  Anfwer  :  He  was  their  oivtiy 
as  it  refpedlcd  liis  human  nature.  He  descended  from 
the  flock  of  Abraham)  and  was  a  Branch  vjhich  [prang 
from  thejVm  cf  Jejje,  In  this  fenfe  he  was  "  bone  of 
their  bone,  and  fleih  of  their  fleih."  Hence  Pilate 
when  addreffing  him  called  the  Jews  his  oion  nation, 
*♦  Thine  own  nation  and  the  chief  priefts  have  delivered 
thee  to  me  "  This  mode  of  expreilion  is  frequently 
made  ufe  of  by  Cariilians  when  praying  for  the  con- 
verfion  of  the  Jews,  "  That  they  may  embrace  their  otun 
Melliah."  In  this  fenfe  it  is  faid.  He  came  to  his  invn 
and  hi!  oivn  received  him  not.  Thefe,  notwlihftandiiig 
their  profeffion,  v/ere  not  his  own  in  any  facing  ienfe  \ 
they  were  not  the  clilldren  of  God.  Ij  God  <were  your 
Father^  faid  Jefus,  ye  ivcuhl  love  me  ;  for  I  proceeded  forth 
and  caviiefrom  G&d.  Thefe  were  not  fpiritual,  but  natu- 
ral branches  only* 

Every  believing  Gentile  has  great  reafon  to  be  hum- 
bled under  a  fenfe  of  the  divine  gooJaefs.  It  would 
illy  become  them  to  boaft  againft  the  Jev/ifli  branches; 
-and  lliould  they,  they  would  neither  bear  nor  fufcain  the 
root,  but  the  root  them. 

One  obfervation  ihall  clofe  our  rerharks  on  this  ar* 
gument  of  Mr.  Edv/ards.  It  is  this  :  If  the  Jev.s  were 
broken  off  becaufe  of  unbelief,  it  is  perfectly  inconfiTtent 
to  fuppofe  that  they  v/ill  ever  be  grafted  in  again  while 
remaining  in  the  fame  Rate.  Therefore  no  fuppolitiou 
can  be  admitted,  that  their  engrafture  will  be  national ; 
or  even  by  families,  including  a  few  believers,  and  many 
Unbelievers,  Such  a  fentiment  can  neither  be  fupport- 
ed  by  reafon,  nor  by  any  thiag  which  the  apoitle  has 
faid  in  this  epiftle.  The  penitent  Jews  will  undoubted* 
ly  come  as  individuah,  as  all  others  do  who  embrisce  the 
Savii^ur.     For  reiigion  h  at  ^U  tiaies  perforial ;  no  one 


can  believe  for  another,  any  more  than  they  can  be  fa- 
▼ed  for  another.  But  when  the  Chriftian  church  fliall 
travail  in  birth  for  this  dear  negledled  people,  we  may 
hope  that  many  fpiritual  children  will  be  born  among 
them.  B\at  even  then  it  may  be  alked,  Sha/i  the  earth  be 
made  to  bring  forth  in  a  day  ?  Or  Jhall  a  nation  be  born  at 
once  ?    Ifai.  Ixvi.  8. 

Mr.  Edwards  argues,  thirdly,  from  Rom.  xi.  17.  "And 
if  fome  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,"  &:c.  This  text 
he  endeavours  to  render  fubfervient  to  a  number  of 
conclufions  drawn  from  his  preceding  argument.  The 
whole  ftrength,  therefore,  of  what  is  faid  under  this 
head,  is  predicated  upon  that.  Hence,  if  we  have  inval- 
idated his  arguments  under  that  head,  his  conclufions 
under  this  will  fall  of  courfe. 

The  entire  force  of  thefe  arguments  taken  together, 
Fefts  upon  this  abfurd  and  falfe  hypothecs,  namely,  that 
while  the  great  body  of  the  Jewifh  church,  including 
adults  and  infants,  was  broken  off,  fome  believing  adults, 
together  with  their  unbelieving  offspring,  were  contin- 
ued. But  this  is  taking  for  granted  the  very  point  in 
difpute  j  which  is,  whether  any  unbelievers,  either 
aduks  or  infants,  ftill  retained  tlieir  ftanding  in  the  good 
elive  tree  j  or  were  admitted,  as  fuch,  to  the  privileges 
of  the  Chriftian  church.  The  account  which  we  have 
already  given  in  this  work*  of  the  gathering  of  the  iirft 
Chriftian  church,  muft,  we  think,  convince  every  un- 
prejudiced mind,  that  it  was  compofed  of  individual  be- 
lievers only.  The  faliity  of  Mr.  Edwards's  arguments 
will  be  fully  perceived  by  all  who  take  the  pains  to  com- 
pare them  with  the  facts  recorded  in  the  New  Tefta- 
ment.  He  has  ftated  his  conclulion  as  follows  :  "  The 
text  informs  uS,  that  fome  of  the  branches  were  broken 
off,  and  if  only  fome,  then  not  all,  and  that  remnant 
continuing  in  their  former  fate  conftituted  the  ftill  exift- 
ing  church  of  God."  (p.  54.)  It  here  needs  only  to 
remove  what  is  falfe,  and  this  conclufion  lofes  all  its 
force  vigainft  the  Baptifts.  The  falfehood  lies  in  this 
member  of  the  fentence  ;  *^  And  that  remnant  continuing 
ik  their  former  fate^'  &c.     'By  t]x2ir  former  fate  is  meant, 

*  Bcc  Scft.  III. 


C     85     J 

that  they  continued  fome  of  all  defcriptioHs  believers 
and  unbelievers,  parents,  children,  and  fervants  bought 
with  money  ;  for  this  was  their  former  {late,  yea,  their 
primitive  ftate.  This  we  have  denied,  and  think-  we 
have  proYcd  it  untrue.  We  Ihall  maintain  this  gTouad 
until  proof  is  made  out  that  fome  were  retained  in  the 
good  olive  treeT>efides  believers.  This  fentiment  is  the 
very  ground  work  of  his  fcheme.  It  runs  through  and 
forms  the  centre  of  all  his  arguments.  Hence  the  re- 
moval of  this,  unhinges  his  whole  plan. 

We  proceed  to  INIr.  Edwards's  fourth  argument, 
founded  on  Eph.  ii.  14.  "  For  he  is  our  peace,  who 
hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  mid- 
dle wall  of  partition  between  us." 

From  this  palTage,  he  informs  his  readers,  the  fame 
conclulions  muft  be  drawn  as  from  the  preceding. 

1.  "  That  the  Jewifh  church  continued  as  before, 
and  was  not  diflolved  at  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles." 
This  may  be  true  ;  but  what  U  this  to  the  argument  ? 
The  papal  church  continued  as  before,  and  was  not  dif- 
folved  at  the  fetting  up  of  the  proteftant  church.  Thefe 
Gentile  converts  had  no  more  to  do  with  the  old  Jew- 
ifh church,  than  we  have  with  the  church  of  Rome. 

2.  "  That  the  Gentiles  were  not  formed  into  a  ne\f' 
church,  becaufe  the  breaking  down  of  a  partition  united 
them  to  the  Jewilh  church,  and  made  them  one'*' 

That  the  Gentiles  were  not  formed  into  a  new  church 
is  true.  But  it  is  not  true,  if  we  can  underftand  the 
Bible,  that  they  were  united  to  the  old  Jewiih  church  ; 
nor  to  any  other  which  bore  the  name  of  a  Jewiih 
church  j  but  to  the  difciples  of  Chrift,  or  Chriilian 
church.  This  was  indeed  formed  of  believing  Jews, 
but  of  fuch  only  as  feparated  from  the  old  JewiQi 
church.       Mr.  Edwards  adds, 

3.  «  That  infants  were  in  a£lual  memberdnp  in  that 
church  to  which  the  Gentiles  were  united."  No,  Mr. 
Edwards,  this  cannot  be  admitted.  Your  conciufion  is 
built  on  falfe  premifes.  You  adduce  it  from  this  poftu- 
latum.  That  a  part  of  the  old  Jewilh  church,  conliiling 
of  believers  and  unbelievers,  conftixuted  that  body  to 
which  the  Gentile  converts  were  added.     This,  it  is  be- 

H 


[     8fe     3 

iie\'cd,  has  no  foundation  in  trnth,  and  ca»  be  fupportt^ 
only  by  your  fophiftical  retjfoning. 

The  union  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  fpoken  of  ill 
this  text,  was  not  between  them  generally,  but  only  be- 
tween believers.  The  Jewiili  church  ftood  as  far  aloof 
from  the  Gentiles  as  ever. 

Had  Mr.  Edwards  duly  confidered  the  verfe  follow- 
ing that  from  which  he  has  drawn  the  above  inferences, 
and  admitted  the  complete  fenfe  of  the  lafl:  claufe, 
it  would  have  faved  liim,  in  all  probability,  one  half 
of  his  book.  We  will  here  add  it,  fo  that  the  reader 
may  compare  it  with  his  remarlts.  Havings  faith  the 
^-iodlQ)  aao-'Jhed  hi  his  fiejh  the  enmity  y  (ven  the  Icnv  of  coin' 
rnind'rnents  contained  in  ordinances^  for  to  make  in  himfelf 
tf  tivain  ONE  NtW  MAN.  fo  mahng  prate.  Here  the 
apoftle  informs  us,  that  in  order  to  effeft:  this  union, 
the  law  of  ceremonial  ordinances  "which  char  after  i*zed 
the  Jetvifii  chutch  ftate,  and  which  was  the  occafion  of 
perpetual  enmity  between  them  and  the  Gentiles,  was 
abolifi^ed  in  the  fiefn  of  Chrift.  Circumcilion  was  a 
principal  caufe  of  this  enmity.  "  The  Jews  reproached 
and  hated  the  Gentiles,  as  being  uncircumcifed.  The 
Gentiles  defpifed  the  Jews  for  being  circumcifed,"*  2. 
The  text  lliows  us  ivhtre  they  were  linited,  namely,  /« 
himfelf ;  that  is,  in  Chrift.  There  never  has  been  any 
real  union  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  but  in  Jefus 
Chrift.  3.  The  text  alfo  ftiows  us  the  great  end  and 
defign  of  their  being  united  ;  for  to  make  of  twain 
ONE  NEV/  MAN.  By  tliis  neiu  man^  the  Chriftian 
church  is  undoubtedly  intended.  No  other  fair  con- 
ftru£lion,  we  conceive,  can  be  put  upon  the  M'ords. 
Does  this  language  correfpand  with  the  fentiment  we 
are  oppofing  }  Can  any  man  believe  the  old  Jewilh 
church  was  intended  }  That  what  the  -apoftle  calls  a. 
fuiu  7}iani\\zs  not  really  fo  ;  but  only  the  old  one  a  little 
altered  in  his  "  clothing,  ornaments  and  diet,"  but 
««  identically  the  fame  ?"  Is  it  not  plain,  that  by  this 
metaphorical  language,  the  apoftle  prefents  us  v/ith  a 
view  of  the  NewTeftament  Chriftian  church,  compofed 
'«»iiiy  of  believing  Jews  and   Gentiles  .'*    For  in  Cht*^ 

*  Vid.  Poole's  Expof.  in  he. 


C     87     j 

Jefus^  iherg  is  tuither  Jtiv  nor  Greek  ;  but  all  belierersr 
are  y^e  in  him.  It  hence  appears,  that  the  apoftle  was 
very  far  from  the  fcheme  which  Mr.  Edwards  advocates. 
He  appears  not  to  have  entertained  the  moft  diftant 
idea,  that  the  Chriftian  church  (when  compared  with 
the  Jewifli)  was  the  fattie  inan  with  only  his  "  clothes 
changed,"  but  a  unv  man  :  created  in  Chrift  to  good 
works.  The  reader  will  now  judge,  whether  the  iov« 
of  hypothcfis  has  not  carried  the  Author  of  "  Cindid 
Reafons,"  &c.  wide  of  the  truth. 

In  the  concluiion  which  Mr.  Edwards  draws  from 
the  preceding  arguments,  he  makes  this  remark — "  If  a 
law  could  be  found  in  the  New  Teftanient  to  repeal 
that  which  had  been  eftabliihed  in  the  Old,  I  grant 
freely,  that  all  that  has  been  faid  on  the  four  pailages 
of  fcripture,  would  fignify  nothing."  (p.  58.)  The  only- 
^luelHon  of  importancehere  is  this  ;  Is  that  law,  which, 
by  the  ftatement  of  this  writer,  gave  infants  a  viilble 
ft'inding  in  the  church,  repealed  in  the  New  Teftament, 
cr  is  it  ftill  in  force  ?  Was  there  any  law  prior  to,  or 
independent  of  the  law  of  circumcifion,  which  gave 
them  this  right  ?  If  fo,  let  it  be  pointed  out.  If  in- 
fants had  a  right  to  memberihip  independent  of  circum- 
cifion, it  would  have  continued,  whether  they  were  cir- 
cumcifed  or  nou  If  their  right  refted  wholly  upon  cir- 
cumcilion,  then  it  muft  fkand  or  fall  with  that  inftitu- 
tion.  A  right  which  depends  on  a  particular  law,  can- 
not exift  any  longer  than  that  law  remains  in  t'orc^. 
The  queflion  then  comes  to  this  fmgle  point.  Is  cir- 
cumcifion aboliflied  in  the  New  Teftament,  or  is  it 
not  ?  We  prefume  no  perfon  will  pretend  it  has  any 
place  in  the  gofpel  church.  On  what  then,  we  afk,  does 
the  right  of  infants  depend  ?  We  fhall  probably  be  told, 
on  tJie  divine  declaration,  "  /  ivii/  be  a  God  to  thee,  and 
to  thyjc:d  after  thee'''  If  this  promile  contains  a  prior 
right,  and  which  exifts  independently  of  circumcifion,  it 
will  undeniably  follow,  that  uncircumcifed  infants,  or 
thofe  that  are  imbnptized,  ftand  in  covenant  relation  to 
God.  If  this  be  true,  then  the  children  af  thofe  be- 
lieving parents  V,' ho  deny  infant  baptifm,  lland  interefr- 
ed  \n  this  proiiiire,  as  really  as  thofe  who  are  ioitiatei. 


[     88     ] 

according  to  the  inftitution.  The  parent  may,  indfed, 
be  chargeable  with  fome  neglect  of  duty  j  but  this  mii- 
not  invalidate  the  claim  of  the  child,  nor  make  fhe 
promife  of  God  cf  none  effeEi, 

•Neither  Mr.  Edwards,  nor  any  other  writer  on  that 
lide  of  the  controverfy,  has  attempted  to  trace  the 
right  of  infants  further  back  than  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumciiion.  They  feem  by  common  confent  to  leave 
tliem  for  two  thoufand  years  before,  to  the  mercy  of 
God,  wltliout  any  covenant  relation,  or  any  initiating 
rite.  If  ir.fant  mernberOiip  had  no  exiftence  but  in  con- 
nexion with  circumcilioii,  it  is  difficult  to  fee,  when 
this  has  ceafed,  how  that  can  be  continued.  To  us  it  re- 
quires fame  new  law,  under  a  difpenfation  every  way 
different,  to  fupport  and  continue  it  in  exigence. 

As  an  auxiliary  to  infant  memberfhip,  Mr.  Edwards 
argues  fiom  their  bringing  cliildren  to  Chrift  ;  and 
endeavoiirs  to  make  it  appear  that  this  affords  evidence 
of  their  belonging  to  the  church.  He  does  not  pretend, 
as  mofl:  Psedobaptilis  do,  that  they  were  brought  to 
him  to  be  baptized,  but  fuppofes  '"^  it  is  moft  likely  they 
were  brovght  to  receive  the  benedidlion  of  Chrift. 
Matt.x.  ](i."    (p.  67.) 

The  bringing  of  thefe  children  to  receive  Chrift's 
bl effing,  affords  no  more  evidence  of  their  belonging  to 
the  church,  than  for  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children 
to  afk  the  privilege  for  her  two  fons  to  fit,  the  one  on 
Chrift's  right  hand  the  other  on  his  left,  in  his  kingdom, 
was  evidence  that  they  belonged  to  the  Jewiih  church. 

Per  v/haiever  reafons  thel'e  children  were  brought 
to  Chrift,  one  thing  is  certain  ;  that  is,  that  it  was 
no'  a  common  thing.  This  appears  to  be  a  folitary 
inftance.  The  conducl  of  the  difciples  in  forbidding 
them,  is  full  proof  of  this  affertion.  Neither  the  fim- 
ple  account  ftated  by  the  evangeiifts,  nor  Mr.  Edwards's 
laboured  gloffary,  afford  any  i'atisfa6tory  evidence  that 
they  were  brought,  or  bleffed,  on  account  of  tlieir  re- 
lation to  the  church,  nor  that  they  v/ere  at  this  time,  or 
any  time  after,  baptized. 

The  evangehfts  affign  at  moft  but  two  reafons  for 
their  bringing  thefe   children   lo  Chrift-,   one  is,   that 


[     88     1 

he  woulJ  hy  his  h^nds  on  them  and  pray  ;  the  other, 
li\at  he  would  bids  them  :  probibly  both  meant  the 
fcune  thing.  As  the  'dSt  of  bringing  them  had  no  con- 
nexion with  their  being  church  members,  nor  any  thing 
which  Chrill:  did  particulnriy  applicable  to  them  as  fuch, 
\v^  leave  the  account  jufl  as  we  iind  it  Itatcd  in  the 
fcriptures,  and  acknowledge  we  know  no  more  about  it 
than  what  is  there  recorded. 

We  muil  beg  the  readei*'s  indulgence  while  we  juft 
notice  Mr.  Edwards's  argument  from  A(^U  ii.  58,  39. 
*<  Then  Peter  faid  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized, 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift,  for  the 
remiilion  of  fms,  and  ye  fhall  receive  the  gift  of  tlie  Ho» 
ly  Glioft.  For  the  promife  is  to  you  and  to  your  chil- 
dren, and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  fhall  call."  From  this  text  Mr.  Edwards 
argues  that  the  phrafe,  '*  to  you^  and  to  your  chilirtn^  in- 
tends adults  and  infants." 

Upon  this  we  obferve,  if  the  promife  mentioned 
in  this  text  be  not  limited  by  their  rcptvdingy  or  by 
this  claufe,  as  many  as  the  Lord  cur  (hdjhall  call,  it 
muft  be  coniidered  as  unHmited.  If  limited  as  above, 
then  it  can  embrace  none  but  fuch  as  are  true  pemtetits^ 
fuch  as  are  called  of  God ^  by  an  holy  calling.  In  this  way 
it  will  abfolutely  exclude  infants,  until  llieyarethe  fub- 
je(-ls  of  repentance.  If  t.iken  in  an  unlimited  fenfe,  it 
will  prove  that  all  the  children  ox  believers  Ihall  receiv*; 
remiffion  of  fins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Hoiy  Ghoft.  In 
this  it  will  prove  too  much,  and  fo  deftroy  itfelf  totally. 
Mr.  Edwards  here  means  to  apply  it  to  the  promile  in 
the  1 7th  chapter  of  Genefis  made  to  Abraham  and  his 
feed.  But  if  this  be  the  promife  intended  by  the  apof- 
tle,  it  will  include  all  the  feed  of  Abraham  as  well  as 
the  infants  of  believing,  adults*  For  Mr.  Edwards  has 
before  told  us,  that  that  promife  was  as  "  much  to  his 
feed  as  to  him."  Rtpuiting^  and  being  called  of  Gody 
then,  are  out  of  the  queftion  !  O  no,  not  wholly  fo.  I 
faid,  replies  Mr.  Edwards,  it  "  intends  adults  and  in- 
fants." By  adults,  iSir,  I  conclude  you  mean,  that  pa- 
rents cannot  be  admitted  without  repentance,  and  being 
called  of  God  j  but  upon,  their  believing,  their  infant 
H  2 


[     90     ] 

offspring  come  into  the  ijnmediate  pofTefTion  of  a  right 
founded  in  the  promife  made  in  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion.  This,  we  conclude,  will  be  granted.  It  would 
be  defirable  here  to  know  whether  Mr.  Edwards  means 
to  apply  this  promife  to  the  children  of  believers  indef- 
initely, or  to  infants  only.  The  apoRle  fays,  to  you  and 
to  your  children  ,-  Mr.  Edwards  fays,  to  adults  and  infants. 
We  will  ftate  a  cafe,  and  a  very  probable  one  too,  and 
fhould  be  glad  of  a  candid  nnfwer  to  it  :  it  is  this.  At 
the  age  of  fixty,  two  perfons,  who  are  the  parents  of  a 
numerous  family,  are  brought  to  repentance  :  they  ap- 
ply io  Mr.  Edwards  to  be  admitted  to  the  privileges  of 
the  Chriftian  church  They  have  a  number  of  chil- 
dren of  different  ages,  from  thirty-five,  down  to  twenty- 
one  ;  but  no  infants.  ^  Will  be  addrefs  tl^em  in  the  lan- 
guage of  the  apcftle,  and  tell  them,  the  promifi  is  to  yoii^ 
and  to  your  children  ;  and  on  this  ground  admit  them 
all  to  baptifm  }  We  very  m.uch  doubt  it.  The  prac- 
tice of  Psedobaptifl-s  generally  tells  us,  they  v/ould  not. 
But  on  what  principle  can  thefe  children  be  refufed  ? 
The  promife  is  to  you  and  to  your  children.  Thefe 
are  as  much,  their  children,  as  if  they  were  infants  of 
only  eight  days  old.  The  npoftle  has  ufed  the  term 
children,  without  any  limitation  as  to  age.  Tf  the  right 
be  founded  in  this,  that  their  parents  are  believers,  then 
a  perfon  of  fifty  years  old  may  claim  this  right  for  him- 
felf,  with  as  much  propriety  as  any  could  have  chaU 
lenged  it  for  him  when  he  was  in  a  (liate  of  infancy. 

We  v/ill  fuppofe  one  cafe  more,  and  one  which  fre^- 
quently  occurs  :  it  is  this.  The  parents  of  a  family,  at 
the  age  of  about  forty-five,  are  brought  to  embrace  the 
jgofpel  :  they  have  children  of  every  grade,  from  eight 
days  old,  up  to  more  than  twenty  years.  We  wiOi  to 
know  whether  they  all  are  to  be  received  to  member- 
fliip  on  thoir  parents*  account  ?  If  not,  what  age  dif- 
qualifies  them  from  coming  .''  If  they  may  be  received 
on  their  parents'  account  at  the  age  of  twenty,  we  fee 
nothing  to  forbid  them  at  twenty-five,  at  thirty,  at 
forty  ;  yea,  at  any  age  while  their  parents  live  to  fupport 
their  claim.  If  the  promife  in  the  text  gives  any  of 
the  children  of  believers  a  right  to  meiiiberHiip  without 


[91     ] 

repentance,  or  being   called  of  God,  It  gives  them  all 
a  right. 

However  abfurd  thefe  things  may  appear,  they  are 
but  the  fair  legitimate  confequences  of  Mr.  Edwards's 
argument.  There  is  but  one  way  for  him  honourably 
to  clear  himfelf,  and  that  is,  now  to  prove  that  tekna 
means  only  infants  of  a  certain  age,  and  not  children 
generally.     This  we  think  he  will  find  rather  difficult. 

His  conclufion  from  the  pafTage  is,  "  that  infants  are 
placed  in  the  fime  relation  to  baptifm,  as  they  were  of 
old  to  circumciiion."  (p.  71.)  I'liat  rite  placed  uiicir- 
cumcifed  infant^.,  and  uncircumcifed  adults  all  upon  one 
footing  as  to  right.  It  alfo  placed  Abraham's  fervants 
upon  t lie  fame  level  with  his  natural  feed. 

On  the  whole,  this  argument  ipun  out  of  the  promlfti 
made  in  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  is  one  of  the 
moit  lingular  that  we  ever  attempted  to  trace.  It  pof- 
fefles  certain  elaftic  qualities,  by  which  it  is  rendered 
capable  of  being  extended  or  contracfted,  fo  as  to  fait 
the  convenience  of  the  perfon  who  ufes  it.  Viewed 
in  its  fuUeft  extent,  and  it  proves  the  right  of  fervants 
as  well  as  children  j  in  this  it  proves  too  much  for  the 
purpofes  of  infant  memberlhip.  Viev/ed  in  a  limited 
ienfe,  and  it  will  funport  only  the  right  of  males  ;  in 
this  it  proves  too  little,  and  of  courfe  makes  no  provhion 
for  females.  Yet  upon  the  whole,  it  proves  juft  enough 
to  fecure  the  right  of  infants,  both  males  and  females,, 
and  no  more. 

Let  us  now  for  a  moment  review  the  pafTage,  in  or- 
der to  afcertain  the  plain  fenfe  of  the  apoftle.  "  Then 
Peter  faid  unto  them.  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one 
of  yvii'^  That  he  did  not  mean  infants  is  plain,  from 
rcafon,  and  from  Mr.  Edwards's  own  concefiion  j  who 
fays,  that  "  faith  and  repentance  are  never  required  of 
infants,  in  order  to  any  thing."  But  he  required  re- 
pentance of  the  fame  perfons,  that  he  called  upon  to  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  Jefus  Chrift.  To  fay,  that  he 
called  oa  adults  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  and  at  the 
fame  tim«  to  bring  all  tiieir  impenitent  children  to  the 
ordinance,  appears  to  be  a  conftrudion  too  unnatural 
«uid  forced.     The  apoftle   adds.  And  yejhall  receive  the 


[      »2      1 

gift  of  the  Holy  Gbifl^     If  he  inelucl^d  all  the  children  of 

believers,  did  he  engage  the  ^ift  of  the  Holy  Gh^fl  to 
them  all  ?  For,  f^ith  he,  thu  pyomlfs  is  to  yoUy  and  to  your 
children^  and  to  all  that  aye  afar  ojf,  evert  as  matiy  as  the 
Lord  our  GodJhaV.  call.  Is  it  not  plain  to  every  one, 
that  the  laft  fentence  is  here  designed  as  a  limiting 
claufe  ;  and  that  there  would  be  as  much  propriety  in 
leaving  it  out  in  every  inftance,  as  in  one  ?  We  ought 
either  to  read  it  thus — The  promifs  is  i9  vou<,  and  to  your 
ihildretii  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off]  and  fo  confider  it 
£S  being  univerfal  •,  or  elfe  conne^l  this  limiting  claufe 
with  each  fubjeft  mentioned  in  the  text.  If  the  latter 
be  truej  it  would  be  under ftood  thus,  The  promife  is  to 
you,  who  now  appear  to  be  true  penitents;  it  will 
equally  embrace  your  children,  whenever  they  become 
penitent  ;  and  alfo  the  Gentiles  who  are  afar  off,  even 
as  many  of  ail  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  call.  But  no 
fuch  thing  as  a  promife  to  unbelieving  children  can  be 
inferred  from  this  paifage.  To  fuppofe  this,  would  be 
to  make  the  apoflle  z€i  the  part  of  a  god-father,  and 
promife  that  thefe  children  fliouM  repent,  and  receive 
i^miffion  of  fins,  and  the  g:ift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  &c. 
at  feme  future  period.  "We  cannot  believe  that  the 
apoftle  ever  trifled  in  this  manner. 

Mr.  Edwards  attempts  to  get  over  the  difficulty  of 
this  limiting  claufe  in  tliis  way.  *' As  the  apotlle,  faith 
he,  extends  the  promife  beyond  the  called  m  the  fird: 
claufe,  v/e  muft  follow  his  example,  and  extend  it  be- 
yond the  called  in  the  laft  clauie — ^Tlius  the  promife 
is  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall  call,  and  to 
their  children  "^  (p.  79.)  It  does  not  appear  that  the 
apoftle  did  extend  the  promife  in  the  firft  claufe  beyond 
the  called.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  meant  to  ap- 
ply the  promife  to  children  upon  any  other  principle 
than  as  he  applied  it  to  parents  -,  namely,  upon  their  re- 
penting and  being  baptized.  The  promife  would  as 
naturally  embrace  impenitent  parents  as  impenitent 
children.  On  the  whole,  this  pafTage  muft  be  tortured, 
or  it  will  not  fpeak  a  lingle  word  in  favour  of  infant 
Ikaptifm,     Some  very  fenfibte  and  learned  Psedcbaptift« 


[     9»     ] 

have  given  it  up,  as  affording  no  argument  in  favour  of 
their  fentiment. 

In  what  an  undignified  light  does  the  fcheme  of  our 
opponent  r^prefent  the  apoftle  Peter.  On  the  memo- 
rable day  of  Pentecoft — fuch  a  day  as  had  never  been 
fince  time  began,  and  probably  fuch  an  one  as  will  never 
occur  again  while  time  lafts — the  Holy  Gholt  fent 
down  from  the  afcended  Saviour  !  Peter  ftanding  in 
the  midft  of  three  thoufand  deeply  (litl:relTed  perfons 
who  were  crying  out,  V/'hnt Jhall  nve  do  ?  To  this  earneft 
inquiry,  the  holy  apoftle  is  reprefemed  in  this  very  ab- 
furd  light  as  telling  them,  "that  infants  are  placed  in  the 
fame  relation  to  baptifm  as  they  were  of  old  to  circum- 
cifion."  (A  fubjedt  which  they  made  no  inquiry  about, 
and  which  we  prefnme  had  not  at  this  time  come  into 
their  thoughts.)  Had  the  apofile  been  as  intent  upon 
infant  baptifm  as  Mr.  Edwards  himfelf,  we  cannot  fup- 
pofe,  at  fuch  a  time  and  to  fuch  an  inquiry,  he  would 
have  given  fuch  an  anfvver. 

In  the  preceding  animadvcrfions,  we  have  in  a  very 
brief  manner  examined  Mr.  Edwards's  pretended  refu- 
tation of  cur  arguments  againft  infant  baptifm,  rnd  have 
endeavoured  to  Ihow  the  inconclufivenefs  of  his  reafon- 
ing.  In  order  to  render  his  tafli  more  eafy,  he  has 
attempted,  at  the  very  outfet,  to  deprive  us  of  thofe 
great  advantages  which  the  fcriptures  afford  us  in  this 
controverfy.  But  thefe  will  not  be  relinquiOied.  He 
has  alfo  laboured  abundantly  to  evade  the  force  of  thefe 
arguments,  by  endeavouring  to  embarrafs  and  perplex 
them.  But  when  difentangled  from  his  fophiftical  web, 
they  ftill  appear  correct  and  uninjured. 

We  have  alfo  considered  the  two  leading  arguments 
in  his  prcfent  fyflem.  In  the  firft,  he  undertakes  to 
prove,  that  '<  God  has  inftltuted  in  his  church  the 
memberniip  of  infants,  and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a 
religious  rite."  In  his  fecond  argument,  his  objet^t  is 
to  prove  the  continuance  of  this  right  of  memberlhip. 
From  thefe  taken  together,  he  infers  the  right  of  infants 
to  baptifm  in  the  goipel  church. 

We  have  attempted  to  fhow  the  inconclufivenefs  of 
the  firjly  by  proving  that  the  Jewilh   and    Chriflian 


[  »* 


T 


rhurches  were  not  the  fame  :  That  therefore  no  infer- 
ence can  be  drawn  from  one  to  the  other  refpedting  any 
poUtive  inftitution. 

With  reference  to  the  fecotid,  we  have  e'ndeavoured 
to  ftiow,  that  this  right  cannot  be  contiaued  in  confe- 
quence  of  that  law  which  gave  it  exiftence,  unlefs  con- 
tinued according  to  that  law  :  namely,  that  a  hw 
obliging  a  parent  to  circumcife  his  male  infants,  cannot 
bind  him  to  baptize  them,  both  male  and  female.  That 
whatever  duties  were  enjoined  by  the  Jewifh  difpenfa- 
tion  belonged  to  that  difpenfation  -,  and  that  whatever 
duties  are  required  by  the  gofpel  difpenfation,  are  clear- 
ly and  particularly  enjoined  by  it,  and  not  left  to  be  in- 
ferred from  any  thing  elfe.  This  is  efpecially  the  cafe 
with  whatever  relates  to  pofitive  inftitutions. 

It  will  now  be  referred  to  the  deciflon  of  the  reader, 
whether  we  have  not  demonftrated,  in  a  manner  too 
plain  to  be  denied,  that  the  Chriftian  church,  colle6led 
under  the  perfonal  miniftry  of  Chrift  and  his  apoiiies, 
was  entirely  diftinct  from  the  JewiOi  church  and  inde- 
pendent of  it.  If  fo,  all  Mr.  Edwards's  arguments, 
founded  on  a  contrary  hypothefis,  are  unavailing.  They^ 
prove  nothing  but  his  own  inconiiftency. 

Having  thus  fhown  that  thefe  two  arguments,  which 
are  the  main  pillars  in  Mr.  Edwards's  fyftem,  are  both 
defedtive,  and  totally  unable  to  faftain  the  fuperliruc- 
ture  raifed  over  them  ;  we  fhail  not  trouble  the  reader 
at  prefent  with  animadverdons  on  his  other  collateral 
arguments,  many  of  which  are  but  mere  ramifications 
of  the  fame.  It  is  evident,  that  on  thefe  he  placed  hi$ 
main  dependence.  All  his  other  arguments  are  de-^ 
iigned  only  to  corroborate  and  ftrengthen  thefe.  Yea, 
he  tells  us  exprefsly,  that  **  the  whole  defence  of  infants 
refts  on  two  arguments.  1.  That  God  did  conftiiute 
in  his  church  the  memberfmp  of  infants,  and  admitted 
tiiem  to  it  by  a  religious  rite.  2.  Tliat  the  right  cT 
infants  was  never  taken  away."  (p.  8"^.) 

The  fir  ft  of  thefe  is  admitted  under  certain  qualifi- 
cations with  refpe£l  to  the  Jewiih  church.  But  even 
ia  this,  inf  \nts  were  not  generally  admitted  by  any  re- 


i   'Si   ] 

ligious  rite.  It  was  only  infants  of  a  certain  defcrip- 
tion  who  were  thus  admitted. 

With  regard  to  the  fecond,  fiioiild  we  admit  the 
premifes,  we  muft  deny  the  conclufion.  For  though 
this  right  had  never  been  taken  away,  it  would  not  be- 
long to  any  other  church  than  that  to  which  it  was 
given.  If  this  be  the  foundation  on  which  "  the  de- 
fence of  infants  refts,"  then  it  depends  certainly  on  no 
new  additional  grant  made  under  the  gofpel  difpenfa- 
tion  ;  of  confequence,  there  can  be  no  more  in  it  now, 
'than  was  originally  in  it.  If  the  whole  defence  of  in- 
fants refls  on  this,  then  no  part  of  it  can  reft  on  any 
tiling  elfe.  This  privilege  can  no  more  be  enlarged 
without  fome  fpecial  z^Oi  of  the  Lawgiver,  than  it  can 
be  wholly  taken  away  and  difannuUed.  Hence  if  this 
right  remain  at  all,  it  muft  remain  precifely  in  its  in- 
flituted  form,  and  no  otherwife  •,  unlefs  feme  new  law, 
making  an  important  alteration,  can  be  produced. 

What  effeiSi:  Mr.  Ed-wards's  writings  may  have  in  ef- 
tabliiliing  his  Pxdobaptiil:  brethren,  we  pretend  not  to 
fsy ;  but  we  arc  perfuaded  that  fuch  <♦  candid  reafons" 
as  he  has  offered,  when  ftript  of  their  fophiftical  drefs, 
will  have  little  influence  on  the  m-inds  of  real  Bi^ptifts. 
We  know  of  no  one  who  has  been  brought  by  them  to 
"  renounce  the  principles  of  Anti-psedobaptifm  ;"  but 
on  the  contrary,  feveral  have  been  brought  to  embrace 
them.  His  reafonings  have  produced  ilie  fame  eS^edls  on 
otiiers,  which  he  informs  his  readers  that  Iklr.  Booth's 
did  on  him. 

If  what  we  have  offered  to  the  reader  in  the  prece- 
ding pages  be  according  to  the  oracles  of  truth,  we 
pray  the  great  Head  of  the  chcrch  to  fucceed  it  for  the 
comfort  and  eftablifliment  of  fuch,  as  are  reeking,or  ccn- 
teridijig  for  the  truths  and  for  the  coiivi(ftion  of  luch  a? 
are  advocating  error. 


L     &6     ] 


SECTION     V. 

Strictures   on   Two   Difcourfes    on  the   Perpetuity   and 
Provifion  of  God's  gracious  Covenant  ivith  Ahraham  and' 
his  feed.     By  Samuel  Worcester,  a.  m.  Paflor  cf 
the  Tabernacle  Church  in  Salem. 

r  OR  the  piety  and  talents  of  the  Author  of  thefe 
difcourfes,  we  entertain  fentiments  of  refpecfbful  efteeni. 
And  although  we  feel  impelled  to  animadvert  upon  his 
writings,  we  fliall  ftill  hold  his  perfon  facred.  We  do 
not  blame  him  for  endeavouring  to  defend  his  own  fen- 
timents, and  guard  his  flock  againft  what  he  confideis 
to  be  error.  But  from  his  former  profeffions  of  candour, 
we  had  no  juft  reafon  to  expedl,  that  he  would  fo  far 
mifreprefent  our  known  and  avowed  fentiments,  as  to 
lead  his  readers  to  fuppofe,  that  we  were  deftitute  both 
of  religion  and  common  decency  j  that  we  "  difplay 
our  greateft  zeal  in  making  people  believe,  in  too  many 
inftances,  that  going  into  the  water  will  anfwer  all  the 
purpofes  of  their  prefent  comfort,  and  of  their  eternal 
falvation."  (Note,  p.  73.) 

Had  Mr.  Worcefter  contented  himfelf,  by  proving  to 
«iemonftration  every  iota  of  his  own  plan,  without  in- 
vading the  right  of  others ;  his  difcourfes  might  in  all 
probability  have  paffed  down  the  ftream  of  time  un- 
xjoticed.  Such  an  attempt  would  have  given  no  reafon- 
able  offence  to  any  man  living.  But  when  he  digreffes 
from  this  point,  fc«:  the  purpofe  of  reprefenting  in  an 
unfriendly  light  the  fentiments  and  practice  of  a  nume- 
rous body  of  Chriftians,  who  think  they  have  at  leaft 
equal  preteniions  to  apoftolical  purity  of  fentiment,  we 
mufb  view  it  with  the  deepeH:  regret. 

The  author  of  the  difcourfes  before  us  has  commen- 
ced the  attack  ;  and  if  we  do  not  miftake  him,  has  im- 
pliritly  invited  us  to  the  conteft.  If  this  be  not  his 
meaning,  we  think  he  has  at  leaft  fuperfeded  the  necef- 
fity  of  an  apology  on  our  part,  if  we  teft  hirii  by  his  own 
principles.  The  paragraph  to  which  we  refer  is  in  the 
following  words  :  "  Any  caufe  or  dodlrine  which  fhrinhs 
from  the  light  of  fair  inveftigation,  or  will  not  endure 


C     91     ] 

the  tefi:  of  fcripture  argument,  certainly  cannot  be  the 
cauie  of  truth,  nor  a  do^Vrine  according  to  godlinefs. 
And  thofe  who  will  be  offended  or  hurt  by  a  fair  and 
candid  exhibition  of  argument,  and  vindication  of  fen- 
timents  in  oppofilion  to  their  own,  give  the  greateft 
evidence  that  they  are  not  contending,  or  conc-erned 
for  the  caufe  of  truth,  but  only  for  the  caufe  of  a  par- 
ty." (p.  78.)  The  common  adage  fays,  "  It  is  a  poor 
rule  that  will  not  work  both  ways." 

If  Mr.  Worcefter  meant  to  apply  this  to  the  Baptifts, 
and  fuppofe  that  they  would  fhrink  from  a  fair  fcrip- 
tural  invei^igation  of  the  fubjcift  in  difpute,  he  may  be 
aiTured  he  has  mil^aken  the  men  whofe  fentiments  he 
has  attacked.  No,  let  him  and  his  brethren  treat  us  in 
this  way,  and  I  believe  they  will  not  find  us  to  "  (hrink 
from  the  light  of  fair  inveftigation."  Nor  do  we  be- 
lieve, that  the  Baptifts  «  will  be  oiFended  or  hurt  by  a 
fair  and xamiid exhibition  of  argument."  But,  if  infcead 
of  this,  he  lliall  attempt  to  fiience  us  by  an  oblique  ref- 
erence to  the  gholUy  ftory  of  Munfter,  (which  by  the 
way  we  were  no  more  concerned  in,  than  we  v/ere  in 
the  ivitchcraft  in  Salem)  or,  to  deter  us  from  following 
the  example  of  our  blefied  Redeemer,  by  the  tales  of 
a  Vojftus-t  of  "  naked  men  and  women,"  he  need  not  be 
furprifed,  if  fuch  arguments  as  thefe  do  not  produce 
conviction.  But  even  thefe  fhall  be  noticed  in  their 
proper  place. 

The  difcourfes  before  us  are  founded  on  Gal.  iii.  29. 
And  if  yc  be  ChrijVs^  then  are  ye  Ahrahj.m  s  fecdy  and  heirs 
mccording  to  the  prf^vnije. 

The  doClrine  which  the  author  adduces  from  the  text 
is  this  :  "  In  God's  covenant  of  promife  with  Abraham, 
provifion  was  made  for  the  continuance  of  the  church 
formed  by  it,  and  thus  for  the  tranfmiffion  of  "the  privi- 
leges and  bleilings  contained  in  it,  from  generation  td 
generation,  down  to  the  clofe  of  time." 

In  order  to  iilultrate  this  doctrine,  Mr.  Worcefter 
firft  attempts  **  to  (liow,  that  the  covenant  which  was 
made  with  Abraham,  and  by  which  the  church  was  formed 
in  his  family^  was  intended  to  be  perpetual."  By  this 
covenant  he  evidently  intends  the  covenant  of  circuia- 


L    ^8    J 

ciHon  ;  for  no  other  has  ever  been  fuppored  to  form 
Abraham's  family  into  a  church  ftate.  This  contlufion 
is  drawn  not  merely  from  the  above  flatement,  but  from 
the  whole  tenor  of  his  reafonings.  That  this  is  a  fair 
ftatement,  it  is  prefumed,  will  not  be  denied. 

We  proceed  therefore  to  confider  this  "  candid  ex- 
hibition of  argument."  And  fliall  attempt,  firjly  to 
prove,  that  Mr.  V/orcefter  has  totally  miftaken  the 
prom'ijt  in  his  text  ;  that  the  apoftle  referred  to  a  pro- 
m'lje  entirely  diltindt  from  that  from  which  he  has  rea- 
foned. 

Second.  We  (hall  attempt  to  (how  that  his  applica- 
tion of  this  promife  to  believers  and  unbelievers,  or* 
to  believing  parents  and  their  unbelieving  children,  is 
unfcriptural,  and  contrary  to  the  apoille's  reafoning 
throughout  the  context. 

The  reader  will  keep  in  mind  that  the  promife  made 
to  Abraham  and  his  feed  in  the  covenant  of  circumci- 
iion,  is  the  datum  from  which  the  author  of  thefe  dif- 
courfes  reafons.  In  order  to  prove  that  he  has  mif- 
taken his  text,  and  reafoned  from  a  promife  not  ex- 
pi-efled  nor  intended  by  the  apoftle,  we  begin  at  the 
jaxth  verfe,  where  the  fiibje^l  is  particularly  introduced 
in  the  context.  Even  as  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it 
nvas  accounted  to  him  for  righteoufnefs.  (verfe  7.)  Know 
ye  therefore,  that  they  luhich  are  of  faith  ^  the  fame  are  the 
children  of  Abraham,  (verfe  8.)  Attd  the  fcript lire  fire~ 
feeing  that  God  would  jufify  the  heathen  through  faith, 
preached  before  the  gofpel  unto  Abraham ^  faying,  \i>i  IHILE 
SHALL  ALL  NATIONS  BE  BLESSED.  This  is  the  promifc, 
from  which  the  apoftle  reafons  throughout  the  chapter. 
But  it  muft  be  obferved,  that  this  promife  is  not  found 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  which  is  recorded  at 
large  in  the  feventeenth  chapter  of  Genefis.  By  ex- 
amining this,  we  fliall  find  that  the  above  promife  is 
neither  exprefled  nor  contained  in  it  by  fair  implica- 
tion. Tlie  promife  quoted  by  the  apoftle  is  in  the 
twelfth  chapter  of  Geneiis,  and  third  verfe.  This  was 
made  to  Abraham  at  the  time  when  he  was  called  to 
leave  his  country  and  kindred,  to  go  and  fojcurn  in  a 
ftrange  land,     The  Meiffiah,  in  whons  tke  nations  were 


[     99     ] 

to  be  bleiTed,  wa*-"  revealed  in  this  promile.  Hence  the 
apoftle  calls  this  the  preaching  of  the  gofpel  to  Abraham, 
This  was  probably  the  period  alfo  referred  to  by  our 
Lord,  when  he  faid  to  the  Jews,  Tour  father  Abraham 
rejoiced  to  fee  my  day,  and  ht  faiv  it  and  iva-s  glad*  On 
the  above,  a  learned  commentator  makes  the  following 
remark  :  "The  apoftle  qiiotcth  the  promife^  Gen.  xii. 
S,  where  God  tells  AbrahraTi,  that  in  him  all  the  na- 
tions (or  families)  of  the  earth  fliould  be  bleffed.  This 
is  to  be  underftood  of  thofe  fpiritiial  blellings  which 
are  in  Chrifl:  Jefus  :  for  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
were  no  other  wife  blelTed  in  Abraham. "f 

This  promife  was  made  twenty-four  years  before  the 
covenant  of  circnmcinon  exifted  ;  and  was  as  independ- 
ent of  that,  as  the  covenant  made  with  Nonh  refpe-fi.^ 
ing  the  drowning  of  the  world.  It  did  not  depend  at 
all  upon  the  obedience  of  Abraham,  or  any  other  crea- 
ture It  was  in  no  fenfe  conditional.  The  divine  ve- 
racity was  pledged  for  its  fuliilment.  And  whether 
circuniciilon  had  been  inflituted  or  not,  God  would  in 
the  fulrefs  of  time  have  fent  his  Son  into  the  world, 
and  would  have  bleffed  the  nations  in  him. 

That  this  promife  was  made  to  Abraham  twenty- 
four  years  before  the  covenant  of  circumciiion,  is  proved 
from  the  following  circumftances.  1.  Abraham  was 
feventy-five  years  old  when  he  departed  out  of  Haran, 
which  was  the  time  when  this  promife  was  C  99 
made.J  He  was  ninety-nine  years  old  when  he  -J  ^}__ 
was  circumcifed. 5     See  the  margin.  (^   04 

Abraham  received  this  promife,  believed  in  its  ac- 
complitliment,  faw  by  faith  the  day  of  the  Lord  Je- 
fus,  and  was  juftiiied  through  faith — all  while  he  was 
in  uncircumcifion.[|  Not  one  of  thefe  circumftances 
could  have  ever  been  altered,  had  that  never  been  in- 
ftituted.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  this  promife  was  di- 
re6tly  connected  with,  or  included  in  that  covenant. 
For  notwithftanding  it  is  there  faid,  a  father  of  many  na- 
tijHS  ivill  I  make  thee  ;  and  although  this  might  in  a 
r.:etaphorical  fenfe  allude  to  his  being  the  father  of  be- 

*  John  viii.  56.  f  Poo'.'»  Contin.  in  loc.  \  Gen.  xil  4- 

§  xvii.  I.  H  Vid.  Rom.  iv    9,  10. 


[    loe    ] 

icTcrs  in  all  nations  ;  yet  it  miift  be  obferved,  that  it 
ftands  immediately  connected  with  the  followincr  words ; 
And  I  luill  wake  ihce  exceeding  fruitful ,-  and  I  ivill  make 
NATIONS  OF  THEE,  find  hug.^  Jhall  come  of  thy  Jcins. 
Thefe  exprelBons,  taken  together,  do  not  amount  to  a 
promife,  that  the  nations  which  flioiild  fpring  from 
Abraham's  loins,  or  any  others  ftiould  be  bleiied  in 
him.  It  was  not  therefore  defcending  from  the  loins 
©f  Abraham,  but  poiTefling  his  faith,  which  gave  a  title 
to  the  promife.  The  promife  that  he  fl^ould  be  the 
father  of  many  7iaticn?y  and  that  kings  jJjotdd  ccme  of 
him,  has  been  literally  and  fully  accompli fhed. 

The  promife  which  refpciSled  the  bleffing  of  the 
Gentile  nations  in  Chrift,  was  renewed  again  to  Abra- 
ham about  tvrenty  years  after  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion.  This  was  unde^  circumflances  peculiarly  folemn  : 
it  was  when  he  was  called  to  offer  up  his  beloved  fon 
Ifaac.  We  have  muck  reafon  to  believe,  that  in  this 
tranfadl:ion,  Abraham  faw  more  of  the  myftery  of  re- 
demption, thrcugh  the  incarnation  and  facriiice  of  the 
Son  of  God,  then  he  had  ever  fecn  before.  The  Lord 
now  graciouily  condefcended  to  comfort  him,  by  repeat- 
ing the  promife  which  he  made  to  him  more  than  forty 
years  before,  with  this  variation  ;  In  thy  s^^iyfjjall  all 
the  nations  of  the.  earth  be  blefjed. 

1.  The  af^oftle  is  particul^.rly  careful  to  diftingui'li  this' 
promife  refpccVing  the  seed  in  whom  the  Gentile  na- 
tions fliouM  be  blelTed,  from  that  made  in  the  covenant 
of  circumciiioh  refpecling  the  pofterity  of  Abraham. 
The  ivoman^s  seed,  who  was  to  hruife  the  ferpent's  heady 
was  alfo  the  sefd,  promifed  to  Abraham,  in  whom  the 
believing  Gentiles  fhouid  be  blelTed.  But  primarily 
his  natural  {t^(\^  or  at  mofr  his  fpiritual  feed,  and  not 
Chrift,  was  intended,  by  the  feed  in  the  covenant  of 
circumcifion.  The  nations  have  never,  been  blefled  in 
any  other  of  Abraham's  feed  but  Chrift.  2.  The  apof- 
tle  farther  diftinguiflies  the  promife  under  coniideration, 
in  the  fixteenth  verfe.  Now, faith  hey  to  Abraham  and 
his  feed  nvere  the  PROMISES-  made.  He  fpeaks  in  tlie  plu- 
ral, «  promifes."  In  Gen.  xii.  3,  it  is  faid,  In  thee 
JJmH  all  families  of  the  earth  he  bleffed.     And  in  Gen.  xxii. 


[      101      ] 

18,  it  is  {'aid,  hi  thy  seed  j%all  all  the  nations  of  the  earth 
be  blejfed.     That  we  might   not  miftake   the   latter,  as 
referring  to    the    promife   made   in    the  covenant   of 
circumcilion,   and   lb  to  Abraham's   natural    Iced,   the 
apoftlc  adds,   "  He  faith  not,  And  to  feeds,  as  of  majn  ; 
but  as  of  ONE,  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.    The 
promifes  in  the  covenant  of  circumcilion  were  to  many  % 
to  Abraham'^  feed   generally.     Will   any  perfon  pre- 
fume  to  fay   that  thefe  promifes  referred'  to  Chrift,  or 
were  made  to  him  -,  or  that   he  was  the  feed  there  in- 
tended ?    Were  kings   to    come   out  of  his   loins,  and 
nations  to  be  made  of  him  ?    Was  the  land  of  Canaan 
promifed  to  Chrift  for  an  everlafting  poflsfTion  ?    Thefe 
were    fome    of  the    promifes    maile     and    fulfilled    to 
Abraham  and  his   natural  feed.     Chrift  claimed  no  in- 
tereft  in  the  land  of  Canaan  :  no,  not  {o  much  as   the 
foxes  5  for  they  had  holes  to  burrow  in,  but  the  Son  of 
Man  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head.     It  will  hence,  we 
think,  undeniably  follow,  either  that  the  promifes  made 
to  Abraham's  feed  in  the  covenant   of  circumciiion  re- 
ferred to  Chrifi:,   and  had  particular  refpe^  to  him,  or 
elle  that  the  apoftle  reafoned   from   a  promife  entirely 
diftind  from  them.     3.  That  the  apoftle  did  not  refer 
to  the  promifes  in  the  covenant  of  circumcifion,  is  fur- 
ther evident,  from  what  he  has  faid  in  the  17th  verfe  : 
And  this  Ifayy  that  the   covena?it  that  was  cenfirmed  before 
of  God  in  Chrify   the  lanv    which    was  fctir  hundred  i%.nd 
thirty  years   after y  cannot  dijannuly  that  it^fiould  make  the 
promife  of  none  effect. 

Here  are  feveral  things  worthy  of  confideratlon; 
1.  This  covenant  was  confirmed  of  God  in  Chrift.  It 
confequently  Rood  independent  of  the  obedience  either 
of  Abraham  or  his  pofterity. 

2.  This  covenant,  if  confirmed  in  Chrifc,  could  net 
be  broken  or  difannulled.  There  could  in  the  nature 
of  tilings  be  no  failure.  Even  a  fufpicion  of  this  kind, 
would  be  derogatory  to  the  honour  and  veracity  of 
Chrift. 

3.  This  promife,   which  is   the  fame  referred  to  in  ' 
the  29th  verfe,  the   apoftle  informs  us  was   thus  mad* 
and  confirmed,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  bef©rj& 

I  2 


i  nnnarea  ana 
I,  which  C  1^97 
he  mar-    ]    *_t?l 


i      101     ] 

felie  giving  of  the  iaw.  1'hib  wih  forever  diftii.guifli  it 
from  the  promifes  in  the  coven.mt  of  chcumcifion. 
For  this  was  inftituteci  only  four  hundred  and  fix  years 
before  the  giving  of  the  law.  The  covenant  in  the 
xviith  chapter  of  Gcnefis  was  in  the  year  before  Chriti: 
1897.  The  law  was  given  fourteen  hundred  and 
ninety-one  years  before  the  fame  era, 
leavei  but  four  hundred  and  hx.  bee  th( 
gin. 

But  the  promifo  quoted  by  the  apoftle  from  Genefis 
xii.  3,  which  was  niade  to  Abraham  twenty-four  years 
before,  when  he  was  in  uncircumcihon,  exa£liy  com- 
pares wich  this  ilateraent  in  the  context,  of  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years.  This  pronTiife,  according  to  the 
Bible  chronology,  was  made  to  Abraham  in  the  year 
before  Chrift,  1921.  The  law,  as  cbferved  C  ly^i 
above,  was  given  1491,  v/hich  makes  exaftly  <  [^ 
the  time  fpecihed.     See  the  margin.  (_     4^0 

Here  the  matter  is  reduced  to  mathematical  cer- 
tainty. Any  perfon  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  com- 
pare the  dates  in  his  Bible,  of  the  xiith  chapter  of  Gene- 
iis,  and  the  xxth  of  Exodus,  referred  to  above,  will  feel 
liimfelf  completely  fatisfied.  The  mod  invincible  prej- 
udice will  find  it  difficult  to  refill  the  light  of  demon- 
ftration. 

if  the  obfervations  which  have  now  been  made  are 
correct,  they  will  bring  us  unavoidably  to  this  conclu- 
£on,  viz.  That  Mr.  Worcefter  has  totally  miftaken  the 
promife  in  his  text,  and  reafoned  from  one  to  which 
the  apoftle  had  no  immediate  reference.  Hence  the 
whole  of  his  laboured  fuperftruclure  is  left  without 
foundation  !  The  fate  of  fuch  a  building  may  be  {een 
in  the  ciofe  of  the  hxth  chapter  of  Luke.  In  order  to 
fct  ahde  this  conclulion,  three  things  muA  be  fairly 
pr,oved. 

1.  That  the  apoftle  throughout  this  chapter  did  ac- 
tually mean  the  promife  in  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cifion,  although  he  has  not  mentioned  a  fingle  pafTage 
contained  in  it  j  but  exprefsly  quoted  one  clearly  dif- 
tinguiihed  by  the  time  of  its  being  dehvered,  and  alf© 
hy  the  terms  and  import  of  th«  promife  itfelf. 


[     103     ]   . 

S.  It  mufi  be  proved,  that  the  covenant  of  clrcum- 
clfion  was  430  years  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  nnt^ 
withflanding  fcripture  chronology  places  it  bat  four 
hundred  and  fix. 

3.  Thai  th.^  feed  of  Abraham^  mentioned  In  the  cov- 
enant of  circumciiion,  and  the  seed  In  whom  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  iliould  be  blefTed,  were  the  faaie  : 
or  in  other  words,  that  the  feed  of  Abraham,  expreffed 
in  that  covenant,  meant  Chrift  ;  for  the  apoftle  has  ex- 
prefsly  told  us  in  the  context,  that  he  was  the  perfon 
to  whom  the  promlfe,  from  which  he  was  then  reafon- 
ing,  excluhvely  referred. 

Until  thefe  are  fairly  proved,  we  fliall  infift  upon  the 
conclufion  above  ftated.  We  have  too  good  an  opinion 
of  Mr.  Worcefter's  candour,  to  think  that  he  will  deny 
that  he  has  reafoned  from  the  covenant  of  circumcifion 
throughout  his  dilccurfes.  If  he  can  honourably  extri- 
catehimfelf  from  tlie foregoing  dilemma,he  willundoubt- 
edly  do  it ;  and  in  doing  it  he  will  inftrucl  the  writer  of 
thefe  firicturei.,  and  probably  relieve  fome  of  his  breth- 
ren, who  have,  it  is  thought,  already  felt  the  difficuhy. 
We  new  proceed, 

Seco>^dly,  to  fliow,  That  the  application  of  this 
promlfe  to  believers  and  unbelievers,  or  to  believing 
parents  and  their  unbelieving  children,  is  unfcriptural, 
and  contrary  to  the  apoftle's  reafoning  throughout  the 
context.  The  apoftle  predicates  his  reafonings  upon  two 
diftintSt  topics,  viz.  upon  Abraham's /a/V/;,  and  the  prom- 
if  made  to  him  refpe(fting  the  Gentile  nations.  With 
regard  to  the  firft,  he  faith,  Abraham  btUeved  Gody  and 
it  ivas  accounted  to  hhn  for  right eou fiefs.  Know  yr,  there^ 
fore,  that  they  ivhich  are  offaithy  the  fame  are  the'  children 
of  Abraham,  (Ver.  6,  7,^  Here  it  muft  be  obvious  to 
every  unprejudiced  mind,  that  Gentiles,  whether  young 
or  old,  cannot  claim  this  reiationlhip  to  Abraham,  un- 
lefs  they  are  of  faith  :  that  is,  unlefs  they  believe  Gjd,  as 
Abraham  did.  Viewed  in  this  characfter,  as  the  "  father 
of  the  faithful,"  and  the  lame  diftinaion  will  alfo  apply 
with  refpei5t  to  his  natur:d  pofterity.  None  of  his 
feed  are  confidered  as  his  children  in  this  fenfe, 
but  fuch  as  are  of  faith.     This  diAinaion  was  made  by 


Ckrift  himfelf,  when  reafoning  with  the  pharlfees,  in 
the  viiith  of  John.  FeeHng  themfelves  preffed  by  his 
arguments,  they  lied,  to  their  common  refuge,  We  be 
Abraham^ s  feed.  Jefus  anfnuered  them,  I  know  that  ye  are 
Abraham's  feedy  but  ye  feek  to  kill  me,  becaufe  my  word  hath 
noplace  in  you.  If  ye  luere  Abraham's  CHILDREN,  ye  tuntld 
do  the  works  of  Abraham.^  The  works  of  Abraham 
comprehended  both  his  faith  and  his  obedience  ;  and 
for  any  one  to  claim  intereft  in  him  as  their  father, 
until  they  are  the  fubjedls  of  laving  fiiith  in  Jefus 
Chrift,  would  be  equally  as  unavail'ing  as  the  claim  of 
the  rich  man,  who  addreffed  Abraham  as  his  father ,  but 
could  not  obtain  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  tor- 
ment-ed  tongue.f 

We  have  airesidT  made  feme  remarks  on  the  14th 
verfe,  but  it  comes  in  courfe  to  be  confidered  more  par- 
ticularly. The  apoftle  in  the  preceding  verfe  makes 
this  ftatement  j  That  "  Chrift  hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curfe  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curfe  for  us,  that 
the  bleffing  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles, 
through  Jefus  Chrift."  Is  it  poilible  for  any  perfon  ta 
fuppofe,  that  by  the  bleffing  of  Abrahatn,  the  apoftle  in- 
tended external  church  privileges  ?  fuch  as  the  bap- 
tizing, and  conftituting  children  church  members  ^  We 
cannot  think  thefe  were  the  bleflings  expreffedor  intend- 
ed by  the  apoftle.  For  according  to  him,  the  blefling 
of  Abraham  comes  on  the  Gp.nx.\\QSyihrough  Jefus  Chri/iy 
and  through  no  other  medium.  But  the  blefling  of  in- 
fant baptifm,  and  infant  memberfhip,  comes  on  chil- 
dren through  their  parents  :  it  depends  altogether 
upon  them,  whether  the  children  ihall  enjey  thefe 
bleflings  or  not.  But  according  to  the  apoftle,  They^ 
which  be  of  faith,  are  blejfed  with  faithful  Abraham,  whether 
their  parents  are  believers  or  unbelievers  ;  whether 
friends  or  enemies  to  the  crofs  of  Chrift. 

According  to  Mr.  Worcefter,  if  we  underftand  him, 
the  falvation  of  the  children  of  believers  depends  prin- 
cipaily  upon  the  "  faith  and  fidelity"  of  their  parents. 
His  words  are,  "  The  promife,  then,  to  be  a  God  ta 
Abrahaoa,  and  to  his  feed  after  him,  v/as  of  this  pur- 

♦Jokaviii.  33,«37,  ^.  f  Luke  xti.  24. 


C      105     ] 

port,  that  on  condition  of  faith  and  fidelitf  on  Abra- 
ham's part,  i!i  rcrpe(ft  to  his  children^  they  IhoiiM  be- 
come fubjccls  jf  grace,  and  heirs  of  the  bleilings  of  the 
covenant.  The  fame  promife  was  made  to  Abrahain's 
pofterity,  in  their  fucceflivc  generations  ;  and  the  fame 
is  now  made  to  all  true  bclievers^his  adopted  children 
of  every  nation."*  This  doctrine,  we  believe,  has  been 
averted  by  other  Paedobaptiri:  minifters,  befides  Mr. 
Worcelier  5  but  we  acknowledge  fr;ely  th:it  we  have  our 
doubts  reipectiiig  its  correchiefs.  Will  any  one  nilcrt 
that  all  Abraham's  own  children  were  faved  ?  If  not, 
will  they  venture  to  hy  it  was  owing  to  his  want  of 
fmth  or  fideiity  towards  them  ?  Was  Ifaac  diftinguiflied 
by  Abraham's  faith  and  fidelity  before  he  was  conceiv- 
ed in  the  womb  of  Sarah,  as  the  child  of  promife  ?  Or 
does  it  appear  that  Abraham  ever  exercifed  any  pre- 
eminent faith  or  iideiity  towards  Ifaac,  more  than  to- 
wards Ilhrnael  ? 

If  we  d^fcend  a  ftep  further,  into  the  family  of  Ifaac, 
we  (hall  fee  ftill  clearer  proof  of  the  incorreclnefs  of 
the  fentiment  under  confideration.  It  is  too  evident  to 
be  denied,  that  Ifaac  had  a  partiality  for  Efau.  It  is 
alfo  evident  tliat  his  faith  had  fixed  on  him  as  the  heir 
of  promife  j  for  he  intended,  and  actually  thougiit  he 
had  given  him  the  bleiiing.  Yet  the  purpofe  of  Gcd^  ac- 
cording to  ehrum,  fuperfeded  both  his  *'  faith  and  fideli- 
ty," with  refpect  to  Efau,  and  gave  the  blefiing  to  Jacob. 
Will  any  one  hazard  the  aflertion,  that  Ifaac  had  any 
different  exercife  oi faith  for  Jacob,  or  manifefted  any 
fidelity  towards  him,  which  he  did  not  towards  Efau  ?  Or 
was  it  the  fovereign  pleafure  of  God  alone,  that  made 
Jacob  the  lot  of  his  inheritance^  rather  than  Efau,  totally 
independent  of  either  the  faith  or  fidelity  of  the  pious 
parents  ? 

*  Throughout  the  chapter  on  which  the  difcourfef 
before  us  are  founded,  the  apoftle  has  allerted  the  per- 
fonal  intereit  of  believers,  and  of  no  others  in  the  blef- 
fing  of  Abraham.  There  is  not  a  word  of  this  condi- 
tional hufinefs^  about  tl>e  "  faith  and  fidelity"  of  parents, 
by  which  their  children  become    «*  fubjects  of  grace  :'* 

•  Difc.  p.  1%. 


[     106     ] 

but,  according  to  the  apoftle,  both  parents  and  chil- 
dren "  become  fubjefls  cf  grace,"  only  by  becoming 
believers  in  Chrift.  This  is  being  blefled  with  Abra- 
ham in  fom*  proper  fenfe,  and  to  fome  certain  and 
valuable  purpofe. 

There  is  alfo  a  very  material  difference  with  refpecft 
to  the  kind  of  faith  with  which  the  bleffing  of  Abra- 
ham is  connecled.  The  apoftle  gives  no  intimation 
that  he  means  any  other  faith,  than  that  which  is  com- 
mon to  every  believer  :  that  is,  faith  in  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift  as  the  Son  of  God  and  Saviour  of  the  world. 
But  Mr.  "Worcefler's  faith,  to  which  the  promife  of 
God  is  con.ii:ionai'Jy  made,  feems  to  be  a  faith  refpedl- 
ing  tlie  falvation  of  our  children.  He  reafons  thus  ; 
<<  Hence,"  faith  he,  "though  in  one  refpeiSl  the  prom- 
ifes  of  the  covenant  are  conditional  ;  yet  in  another 
they  are  not.  Though  in  refpect  to  individual  believ- 
ers, the  promifes  are  not  abfolute,  but  have  refpedt  to 
their  fnith  end  fidelity  as  a  condition  ;  yet  with  refpe£l  to 
Chrift,  and  the  church  as  one  with  him,  the  promife* 
are  yea  and  amen.  Though  God  is  not  by  covenant 
abfolutely  engaged  to  give  every  believer  that  faith  in 
the  promifes,  refpecting  his  children,  which  will  cer- 
tainly through  grace,  f^cure  to  his  children,  and  all  of 
them,  the  blefllngs  of  the  covfe.iant,"*  &c.  This  faith 
refpe6ling  children  is  entirely  diftlncl  from  that  faith 
by  which  Abraham  and  all  other  believers  are  juftified  : 
it  is  a  kind  of  faith  which  probably  few  believers  have  'y 
which  many  never  have,  and  which  many  never  caa 
have.  A  great  proportion  of  believers  are  fingle  per- 
fons,  who  have  neither  companions  nor  children  ;  and 
many  who  marry,  live  and  die  childlefs.  None  of  thefe 
can  be  fuppofed  to  have  this  kind  of  faith.  But  we 
afk  3  Has  not  the  blejSing  of  Abraham  come  on  them 
through  Jefus  Chrift  1  Are  they  not  bljpd  with  faithful 
Abraham  ? 

We  have  no  doubt  but  fome  believing  parents  have 
had  ftrong  faith  given  them  refpe^ling  the  converfion 
of  their  children  \  or  at  leaft  fome  of  them,  or  polli- 
bly  fome  of  their  neighbours,  or  their  cliildren.  But 
it  is  equally  evident,  that  many  have  been  fo  happy  a-s 


[    i«7    ] 

to  fee  their  children  brought  to  know  the  Lord,  wk« 
were  never  feniible  of  any  fpecial  faith  concerning  them 
in  particular.  On  the  other  hard,  it  is  reafonable  to 
fuppofe,  that  that  ardent  defire  which  it  is  common  for 
pious  parents  to  feel  for  the  falvation  of  their  children, 
has  led  them  to  believe  many  things  refpefling  them, 
which  they  never  did,  nor  ever  will  realize.* 

Whatever  faith  parents  may  have  rerpe<5tlng  their 
children,  it  is  certain  they  cannot  give  thtm  faith,  and 
confequently  cannot  convey  the  bleffing  of  Abraham  to 
them.  This  blelfing  reiis  on  none  but  fuch  as  are 
themfclves  the  fubje^  of  faith  ;  On  true  believers  only. 
This  promife  therefore  cannot,  confidently  with  the 
apoflle's  reafoningj  be  applied  to  children  on  the  account 
of  their  parents'  faith.  If  ever  they  receive  the  blejfmg 
of  Abraham^  it  ysSSS.  c:r,\e  bn  thtm  thrcir^h  Jffus  Chrift  j 
and  they  will  reft:  in  a  moft  fatal  dtlufion,  if  they  reft 
in  any  thing  fliort  of  this. 

**  Vain  are  the  hopes  that  rtlel'^  place 

Upon  their  birtli  and  bJo;  d  ; 
Dcfccrdtd  from  a  pious  racf, 

Their  faihers  noTv  with  God;" 


*  The  indarcfe  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  V/hittficId,  rtfpet^^'hg  his  foh,  flialt 
Tcrvc  as  a  fpccirr.cn.  In  February,  1744  (fays  Dr,  Gillies)  an  event 
hr.ppcncd  to  him,  which,  an  idfl  all  his  fuccefs,  tended  to  keep  hira 
hiinible,  and  ferved  to  cur<  him  of  a  wcalncfb  to  which  he  had  bcea 
ljal)le,  the  trailing  to  grfni;dkfs  imprtfiions.  It  v  as  the  death  of  hi» 
only  child,  concerning  v.honi  he  v/as  To  imprrfled,  th.<t  he  made  no 
fcruple  of  declaring-  before  the  birth,  that  the  child  would  be  a  fon  ; 
and  that  he  hoped  he  v  oiild  live  to  preach  the  GofpeL  Several  nar- 
row efcapcs,  v/hich  R'lrs.  Wl.itclJtld  liad  duiing  her  pregnancy,  con- 
firmed him  in  his  exf  c6?.ti<ni  ;  whlcli  were  fo  high,  that  after  he  had 
publicly  baptized  the  child  at  the  1  ?.bernacle,  all  went  away  big  with 
the  hopes  of  his  beint*  fp.'red  to  be  employed  in  the  work  of  God. 
Eut  theJe  fond  cipedcaticns  were  foOn  hlafted  by  the  chdd's  death, 
when  he  was  about  fcur  lnoiltIi^  old.  This  was,  no  doubc,  very  hum- 
bling to  the  father  ;  bat  he  was  help'd  to  make  the  wifefl  and  heft 
improvement  of  it.  "  Though  I  am  difappoibtcd,  fays  he,  (writing  to 
a  fiiend)  of  a  living  preacher,  by  the  deatli  of  my  fon  ;  yet  I  hope  what 
happened  before  his  birth,  and  fincc  his  death,  has  taught  me  fuch 
leffons,  as  if  duly  improved,  may  render  his  miftakcn  parent  more  cau- 
tious, more  fober  aiindcd,  more  experienced  in  Satan's  devices,  and 
confequcatly  more  ufeful  in  his  future  labours  to  the  church  ef  God,*'* 
•  Memoirs  oj  the  life  uf  the  Rev.  Get   H'bit^U, 


[    io«    J 

Whether  their  fathers  are  gone  to  heavea  or  not,  re- 
ligion is  at  all  times  a  perforu-il  concern.  The  moft  pious 
parents  cannot  fave  their  ungodly  children.  God  de- 
clared by  the  prophet  Ezekicl,  that  when  he  Ihould 
fend  his  judgments  upon  a  finful  land,  ihotigh  Noak, 
Daniel  and  Job  ivere  in  it^  they  JJjonld  deliver  but  their 
oiun  fouls  by  their  righteoufncfs.  As  L live ^  faith  the  Ltrd 
God,  they  fij all  deliver  neither  fons  nor  daughters.*  Thefe 
were  three  eminent  faints  ;  we  ihould  hence  very  nat- 
urally fuppofe,  their  children  would  derive  as  much 
advantage  from  their  *<  faith  and  fidelity,"  as  the  chil- 
dren of  Ikints  in  general  :  yet  it  feems  that  the  children 
muft  have  fome  perfonal  religion,  independent  of  their 
parents,  to  exempt  them  from  even  temporal  judgments  : 
how  much  more  to  fecure  them  from  the  wrath  to 
come  ! 

The  fentiment  we  have  been  contemplating  refpe<fi:- 
jng  the  promife  of  God  made  to  Abraham,  to  his  f)of- 
terity,  and  to  Gentile  believers,  to  make  their  children 
«*  fubjetSls  of  grace,"  on  condition  of  their  "  faith  and 
fidelity,"  involves,  if  we  miftake  not,  another  impor- 
tant error.  It  Aippofes,  that  every  Gentile  believer, 
who  is  the  head  of  a  family,  ftands  in  the  fame  relation^ 
and  is  entitled  to  the  fame  promifes  that  Abraham  was. 
That  every  true  believer  is  blefTed  with  the  fume  blef* 
fings  of  pardon  p.nd  juftification,  with  interell:  in  the 
Mellidi,  the  promifed  feed,  will  be  readily  r.dmitted  : 
but  it  does  not  hence  follow,  that  the  fame  promifes  are 
made  to  them  refpedting  their  pofrerity  which  were 
made  to  him.  No,  by  no  means  ;  for  this  would  con- 
ftitute  every  believing  head  of  a  family,  an  Abraham  •, 
a  patriarch  of  the  church  ;  a  father  of  the  faithful.  Is  , 
there  a  Mefiiah  to  fpring  from  every  believii^g  family  ? 
Are  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  be  bleffed  in  their 
feed  .''  Does  the  promife  of  the  land  of  Canaan  defcend 
to  the  children  of  believers,  as  it  did  to  the  children  of 
Abraham  ?  Has  God  promifed  any  Gentile  believer 
that  his  feed  ihall  become  numerous  as  the  ftars  of 
heaven  ?  That  nations  and  kings  fhall  fpriiig  from 
him  .? — All  thefe  queftions  muft  be  anfwered  in  the  neg- 

*  Eeek.  xlv.  13— 16« 


C    109    3 

ative.  It  will  hence  appear  that  by  the  fpecial  appoint- 
ment of  God,  Abraham  was  placed  in  a  fituation  differ- 
ent froip  all  other  believers  *,  and  in  this  peculiar  fit- 
uation many  things  were  promlfed  to  his  feed,  which 
are  not  promifed  to  the  feed  of  other  believers. 

But  it  will  probably  be  faid,  we  have  mentioned  every 
thing  elfe  but  the  promife  itfelf,  which  contained  Abra- 
ham's  principal  bleiiing,  and  which  has  been  tranfmit- 
ted  to  Gentile  believers,  viz.  That  God  promifed  to  be 
a  God  to  him,  and  to  his  feed.  From  the  general  tenor 
of  the  difcourfes  before  us,  we  conclude  the  author  con- 
iidered  this  as  the  promife  referred  to  in  his  text. 
Hence,  to  be  Chrift's,  is  to  be  Abraham's  feed,  and  heirs 
according  to  this  promife  :  i.  e.  Tliat  God  will  be  a  God 
to  us  and  our  feed. 

We  truft  it  has  been  made  fufficiently  evident  in  the 
preceding  pages,  that  this  could  not  be  the  promife 
intended  by  the  apoftle  j  and  that  whatever  bleilings 
were  contained  in  this,  that  bleffing  of  Abraham  which 
is  faid  to  have  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jefus 
Chrift,  was  a  bleffing  diftinct  from  this,  and  one  which 
he  enjoyed  long  before  this  covenant  exifted. 

The  queftion  now  to  be  determined  is  this.  Does 
God  ftand  engaged  by  covenant  to  every  believer,  to  be 
a  God  to  him  and  to  his  feed  after  him,  in  the  fame 
fenfc,  as  by  that  covenant  he  flood  engaged  to  Abraham 
and  his  feed  ?  If  a  theory  does  not  correfpond  with  fact, 
it  is  a  certain  argument  that  it  is  not  right.  We  have 
already  feen  that  a  large  proportion  of  believers  die 
without  ifiue.  If  this  promife  in  its  full  force  has  been 
tranfmitted  to  them,  it  required,  belides  their  "  faith  and 
fidelity,"  another  condiiioriy  which  the  author  of  the 
difcourffs  has  overlooked.  It  muft  run  to  them  and 
their  feed,  provided  they  heve  any.  This  promife,  as  it 
refpe(Sted  Abraham,  did  not  require  this  condition  •,  for 
he  had  previoufly  the  promife  of  God,  that  his  feed 
fliould  become  as  the  duft  of  the  earth. 

To  give  a  correct  view  of  what  is  contained  in  this 
promife,  we  fhall  quote  the  words  of  an  excellent  wri- 
ter :  "  To  afcertain  the  meaning  of  this  promife,  (faith 
Ue)  we  can  proceed  on  no  ground  more  certain  thaa 


[     HO     J 

h€t-  It  Is  facV,  that  God  in  fuccceding  ages  took  tkt 
feed  of  Abraham  to  be  a  peculiar  people  unto  himfclf, 
above  all  other  nations;  not  only  giving  them  <the  land 
of  Canaan  for  a  poffeflion,'  but  himfelf  to  be  their  God, 
Kingi  or  temporal  Governor.  Nor  was  this  all ;  it  was 
•among  them  that  he  fet  up  his  fpiritual  kingdom,  giv- 
ing them  his  lively  oracles,  fending  to  them  his  proph- 
ets, and  eftabliihing  among  them  his  holy  worfhip  5 
which  great  advantages  were,  for  many  ages,  in  a  man- 
ner confined  to  them  j  and  what  was  ftill  more,  the 
great  body  of  thofe  v/ho  were  eternally  faved  previoufly 
to  the  coming  of  Chrift,  were  faved  from  amongft  them. 
Thefe  things  taken  together  were  ^n  immenfely  greater 
favour  than  if  tliey  had  all  been  literally  made  kings 
and  prlefts.  Such  then  being  the  faSis^  it  is  natural  to 
fjppofe  that  fuch  was  the  meaning  of  the  promife."* 

*  Fiiller's  Fxpofitcry  Dire,  on  Gen.  xvii.  7.  To  the  above  he  fuD- 
tohis    the   followi:  g  lote. 

As  an  Antipa-dobartift  I  fee  no  reccflity  for  denying  that  fpiritual 
J,lel5rtfs  were  promifed,  in  this  general  ivay,  to  the  natural  feed  of 
J^braham  ;  nci  can  it,  I  think,  be  fairly  denied.  The  Lord  engaged  to 
^«  that  which  he  adinally  did  ;  namely,  to  take  out  of  them,  rather  than 
other  narlons,  a  pecj;le  for  himfclf  This,  1  fuppofe,  is  xhtfeLd  promiftd 
to  Abraharuj  to  which  the  apoRIe  refers  when  he  fays,  "  They  ^vhich 
ire  the  children  oiihz  ficfh,  thefe  are  not  the  cliihiren  of  God  ;  but  the 
children  of  the  promife  are  counted  for  the/teJ.^'  (Rom.  ix.  8.)  By 
''  the  children  of  the  promife"  he  did  not  mean  the  clc<5l  in  general, 
compcfed  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  but  the  eled  from  araongfl  the  Jews* 
Hence  he  reckons  himfelf  "  an  Ifratlite,  cf  the  f.-ed  of  Abraham,  and 
the  trite  of  Benjamin,''  as  a  Hving  proof  that  "  God  had  not  cafl  away 
kis  people  whom  he  fc^reknew.'*     Rom.  xi*  i,  2. 

Eut  1  perceive  not  how  it  follows  from  hence,  that  God  has  promifed 
tp  take  a  peop'e  from  amongft  the  natural  defccndants  of  believers,  in 
lillinAion  from  oihers.  "V^'hat  was  promifed  to  Abraham,  was  neiiher 
promifed  nor  fuiiilied  to  every  good  man.  Of  the  pr.fte|ity  of  his  kinf- 
man  Lot,  nothing  good  is  recorded.  It  is  true,  the  labours  of  thofe 
parents  who  "  bring  up  their  children  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of 
ipe  Lord,"  are'  ordinarily  bleffed  to  the  converlion  of  fomc  cf  them  : 
ind  the  lame  may  be  faid  of  the  labours  tf  faithful  inhiifters,  whcrevar 
|)rovidence  ftations  them*  But  as  it  does  net  follow  in  the  out  cafe, 
that  the  gracelefs  inhabitants  are  more  in  covenant  with  God  than  thefe 
ei  fethcr  placeB,  neither  does  it  follow  in  the  other,  that  the  gracelefe 
©Espring  of  believers  arc  more  in  covenant  with  God  than  thofe  of  un- 
l  elievers.  "  New  Teflament  faints  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  tkan  the  Old  Teftament  believers  who  lived  prior 
to  Abrah^ina." 

I  ,am  aware  that  the  words  of  the  apoftle  in  Gal.  iil  14, "  t^e  WelTiHg;^ 
•^  AjK*b«sa  is  cume  oa  th€  Gentiles,  through  Jcfiis  Cbrift,"  arc  alleged 


[    ^^^    1 

All  this  may  bs  re-idlly  admitted,  witk  refpecl  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  defcenJants  ;  but  it  does  not  prove  that 
the  rime  things  are  either  engag^ed  or  ful tilled  to  Gen- 
tile believers.  Their  feed  is  not  diftinguilhed  by  any 
fpecial  a£b  of  Divine  Providence,  as  th^  feed  of  Abra- 
ham was.  The  uncircumcifed  might  not  mingle  with 
the  circumcifed  in  the  comaion  adls  of  worlhip.  But 
the  difpenfation  under  which  we  live,  has  no  law  for- 
bidding the  unbaptized,  or  even  the  irreligious  from 
attending  public  worihip  with  the  faints.  They  are 
not  coinpelled  now  to  wonliip  in  the  outer  court,  but 
may  fit  upon  the  f^iv^e  feats,  and  hear  the  precious  gof- 
pel.  Circuracifion  forbade  the  ufual  civilities  of  focial 
life  to  the  uncircumcifed  •,  but  this  is  not  the  cafe  in 
Chriflian  focieties. 

But  ihould  we  admit  this  to  be  the  promife  intend- 
ed in  the  paiTage,  on  which  the  difcourfes  before  us  are 
founded,  (which  we  Ihall  by  no  means  grant)  and  th.tt 

in  proof  of  the  contrary.  But  the  mjanlmg  of  that  palTagc,  I  coacchz, 
is  not,  that  through  Jefus  Chrid  every  believer  becomes  an  Abraham,  a 
father  of  the  faithful  ;  but  that  he  is  reckoned  among  hit  chMdren  :  not 
3.  flock  on  which  the  future  church  faould  grow  ;  but  a  irancb,  partaking 
of  the  root  and  fatnefs  of  the  olive  tree  So,  however,  the  context  aj.'- 
pears  to  explain  It — '■-  Tlv^y  which  arc  of  faith  are  ibt  tklldrtn  of  faiihul 
Abraham."     ver.  7. 

But  if  it  were  gi anted,  that  the  blailing  of  Abraham  is  fe  come  o« 
the  believiiT  Gentiles,  as  not  only  to  render  them  blefledashis  ipiriti  al 
chil:iren,bat  to  infa.e  a  people  for  God  from  amongfl  their  niu;:.l  pof- 
terlty,  rath.r  than  from  thofe  of  others  ;  yet  it  is  not  n  thoir  nitural 
po?rerIty  that  they  are  individually  entitled  to  any  one  fpliitual  b!  Tinr  ; 
for  tliis  -.vas  more  than  was  true  of  the  natural  feed  of  Abraham.  Kor 
do  I  fee  how  it  follows  from  hence,  that  we  arc  warranted  to  bat^iirc 
thcra  in  their  infancy.  Abraham,  it  is  true,  was  commanded  to  circurh- 
cife  his  male  children  ;  and  if  we  had  been  commanded  to  baptize  our 
males,  or  females,  or  both,  or  any  example  of  the  kind  had  been  left  in 
the  New  Teftan^.cnt,  v/e  fhould  be  as  much  obliged  to  comply  in  the 
one  cafe,  as  he  was  in  the  other.  Eut  we  do  not  think  ourfelves  war- 
ranted to  reafon  from  circumcifion  lo  baptifm  ;  from  the  circuniciGca 
of  mabs  to  the  baptifm  of  males  and  females  ;  and  from  tha  circum- 
ciCon  of  the  chil  Iren  of  a  nation,  (the  greater  part  of  whom  were  un^ 
believers)  and  of  "  fei  vants  born  in  the  houfc  or  bought  with  money," 
to  the  baptifm  of  the  children  of  believers.  In  fiiort,  we  Jo  not  think  our- 
lelvcs  warranted  in  matters  of  politive  inftitution,  to  foui:d  our  practice 
on  analogies,  wliether  real  or  fuppofed  ;  and  flill  lefs  on  one  fo  circuit- 
ous, dilTonant,  and  uncertain  as  that  in  (luefiion.  Our  duty,  we  con- 
ceive, is,  in  fu^-h  cafes,  to  fallow  the  precepts  and  examples  of  tKe  dif- 
penfation under  which  v,^e  live. 


C     112     ] 

It  has  defcended  to  Gentile  believers  in  the  fulleft  ex- 
tent, yet  we  conceive  that  no  fair  inference  can  be 
drawn  from  it  in  flavour  of  infant  baptifiij.  For  the 
rituals  of  that  difpenfation  were  peculiar  to  it,  and 
have  now  enfircly  cer/ed.  The  Gofpel  difpenfation 
under  which  we  live,  has  its  own  rituals  totally  uncon- 
uecled,  and  independent  of  that.  This  will  appear  by 
this  fingle  eircumftance,  that  the  fame  perfons  who  had 
been  circumcifed  in  infancy,  under  that  difpenfation, 
were  baptized  when  they  became  believers.  If,  accord- 
ing to  our  opponents,  infant  baptifm  comes  in  the  room 
of  circumcifion,  we  fee  no  reafon  why  they  (hoald  not 
now  be  baptized  when  they  become  believers,  as  the 
JewiOi  converts  were  formerly.  If,  as  is  contended  for, 
circumcifion  was  a  feal  of  the  covenant,  and  baptifm  is 
a  feal  of  the  fame  covenant,  why  were  they  fealed  over 
a  fecon;l  time  ?  This  was  certainly  ^w^-fealing,  which 
would  look  quite  as  inconfiftent  sfs  y/;7^7-baptifm. 

If  the  Jewifh  church  and  the  Chriftian  church  are 
the  fame,  where  is  the  impropriety  of  calling  the  form- 
er the  Gofpel  church,  and  the  latter  the  Jewifh  ?  or  in 
ufing  the  terms  interchangeably,  as  may  appear  moft 
convenient  ?  Agreeably  to  this,  fome  Paedobaptifts 
have  called  their  infant  baptifm  "Chriftian  circumci- 
fion." This  is  Judnizing  with  a  witnefs.  The  lan- 
guage of  Pscdobaptift  writers,  and  that  of  the  writers 
of  the  New  Teftament,  when  compared  together,  will 
appear  widely  different  on  thefe  points. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  fo  ftrangely  blended  different 
things,  promifed  to  Abraham  at  different  times,  that 
an  incautious  reader  will  be  likely  to  miftake  one  for 
another.  As  a  fpecimen  of  what  may  be  found  in  va- 
rious parts  of  the  work,  the  reader  will  notice  the  fol- 
lowing paragraphs. 

<*  God's  covenant  of  promife  made  with  Abraham, 
coiTiprifed  all  the  bleffings  and  privileges  ever  prom- 
ifed to  believers  and  the  church." 

*'  /  ivill  ejlahlijh  my  covefiant  between  me  and  thee  and 
thy  feed  after  thee,  fays  the  Lord  to  Abraham,  for  an 
everlcft'ing  covenant,  TO  EE  A  God  unto  thee  and  to 
THY  SEE©  after  THEE."     This  is  the  mcft-  extenlive 


[     113     ] 

promlfe  in  the  covenant  of  circLrncIfion.  Bat  did  this 
*^  comprife  all  the  blefliugs  and  privileges  ever  proraifed 
to  believers  ?"  It  certainly  did  not.  Nor  did  Mr. 
Worcefler  feel  willing  to  reil  his  alT^rtion  upon  this  ; 
but  has  fubjoined  another  promife  made  to  Abraham 
long  before  the  covenant  to  v/hich  he  refers  exifted  ; 
and  which  was  renewed  to  him,  and  to  Tfaac  and  Jacob 
afterwards.  This  pro:nife  he  has  given  us  in  the  fol- 
lowing words,  "  AND  IN  THEE,  AND  IN  THY  SEED  SHALL 
ALL  THE  NATIONS  OF  THE    EARTH  BE  BLESSED."     (page 

14.)  This  promife,  indeed,  comprifes  every  thing,  be- 
caufe  it  comprifes  the  Melliah,  the  seed  in  whom  fome 
of  all  nations  fhall  be  bleiTed.  But  this  forms  no  part 
of  the  covenant  of  circumciaon,  though  conflantly 
blended  in  the  difcourfes  before  us,  as  if  it  were  one 
of  the   mofl:  prominent  articles  in  it. 

The  author  of  thefe  difcourfes  feems  to  anticipate  in— 
iTiinierable  difficulties,  on  the  fuppofition  that  the  Gof- 
pel  church  commenced  with  the  prefent  difpeniation. 
'*If,"  faith  he,  "  the  covenant  made  with.  Abraham  lias 
been  difannuUed,  and  the  church  formed  by  it  abo:- 
iOied  j  if,  on  the  introduction  of  the  Chrillian  difpenfa- 
tion,  a  new  church  was  formed,  and  anew  covenant  in- 
ftituted,  materially  different  from  that  made  with  Abra- 
ham ;  in  what  important  refpedl  can  Abraham  be  con- 
fidered  as  the  father  of  Chrillian  believers  r"  He  fur- 
ther adds  ;  "If  we  be  members  of  a-  different  church, 
formed  by  a  different  covenant  from  that  of  Abraham, 
what  relation  have  we  to  Abraham  .''  In  what  refpe^t 
are  we  his  children  ?  How  is  it  that  we  are  bleffed  with 
him  ?  that  we  are  heirs  according  to  the  promife  made 
to  him  ?"  (page  12.) 

All  thefe  difficulties  we  think  will  be  obviated  and 
removed,  by  corredting  a  very  effential  error  in  his 
next  paragraph.  In  this,  if  we  miffake  not,  he  has 
mifquoted  the  Apoftle's  words,  mifapplied  them,  and 
made  him  give  a  very  important  conclulion,  without 
any  premifes  !  "Thefe,"  fays  the  reader,  "are  charges 
of  confiderable  magnitude  :  they  ought  therefore  to  be 
made  out  fairly,  or  retracted."  We  engage  to  do  one 
or  the   other.     The  quotation   to  which  we  refer  is.> 

k2 


r   111  ] 

in  the  following  words  :  «  H^  receivi'dlheftgn  9fs:Wciim' 
eifion^  a  fcal  of  the  v'lghtty.ifiiefs  ojfiiith^  THAT  HE   MIGHT 

BE  THE  FATHER  OF  ALL  TH6.M  THAT  BELIEVE,  THOUGH 

THEY  BE  KOT  CIRCUMCISED.'*  (page  12  )  That  the 
reader  may  better  judge,  we  will  give  the  paragraph 
entire. 

'<  But  Abraham  was  made  the  father  of  many  na- 
tions ;  and  all  who  are  of  faith  are  his  children,  and 
are  blefTed  with  him.  This  is  according  to  the  cove^ 
nant  of  promife  which  God  made  wuh  Abraham." 
This  is  all  very  well,  but  he  adds,  "  He  received  theftgn 
%f  circumc'ifiGn,  a  feal  of  the  righteouf?iefs  of  faith  y  THAT 
HE  MIGHT  BE  THE  FATHER  OJ  ALL  THEM  THAT  BE- 
LIEVE,   THOUGH    THEY    BE    NOT  CIRCUMCISED,    thougll 

they  be  net  his  natural  poiierity,  that  righteous- 
ness MIGHT  BE  IMPUTED  TO  THEM  ALSO."  if  JMr. 
Worcefter  is  correel,  it  was  xYbraham's  circuQiciiion, 
and  not  his  faith,  which  conftituted  him  the  father  of 
believers  ! 

^The  puiTage  here  referred  to,  is  Rom,  iv.  11.  And 
we  comphin,  1.  That  the  words  are  mifquGtcd.  Tx> 
prove  this,  we  need  only  compare  them  with  the  facred 
text.  IMr.  Worcefter  lays,  «  a  fial  of  the  rightcoufncfs  of 
Jaithy  that  he  might  be  a  father,  &c."  The  apoflle  fays, 
Mfeal  of  the  righteoufjiefs  of'THEfdith  ikihich  he  had,  y^'t 
kewg  uncircumcift'd.  Although  the  words  he  had,  are 
not  in  the  original,  they  are  neceffarily  implied  and 
underftood,  as  in  cur  tranflation.  Had  the  words  been 
quoted  as  they  are  read  in  our  Bibles,  they  would  have 
conveyed  <juice  a  different  meaning.  We  do  not  infift 
that  an  author  fnonld  always  quote  fcripture  verbatim, 
but  if  his  variations  give  a  different  fenfe,  he  is  certain- 
ly accountable  for  it. 

52.  We  complain  that  the  words  are  mi/applied. 
They  are  applied  as  they  ftand  in  the  Bible,  only  to 
Abraham.  Circumciilon  was  a  feal  to  Abraham  of  his 
faith,  but  it  is  not  iaid  to  be  fuch  to  his  pofterity,  or  to 
any  other  perfoa  upon  earth.  Mr.  Worcefter  has  made 
it  a  feal  of  the  r'lgJfteoufnefs  of  faith  generally.  What  faith 
can  it  be  fuppoied  that  an  infant  has  of  eight  days  old  ^ 
YiTas  there  any  iiiitiiL  foaled  to  fuck  ?  What  f*;ith  wis 


[     H5     ] 

fealed  to  a  lervant  bought  with  money,  who  had  beta 
brought  up  I;i  idolatry,  and  perh.ips  ftill  attached  to  ic, 
only  compelled  ta  conform  to  the  religion  of  the  Jews, 
becaufe  he  was  a  ilave  ?  No  man  believes  that  either  of 
tfie  two  were  fubje^ls  of  faith.  How  then,  we  alk,  was 
circumciiion  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith  to 
them  ?  But  it  will  be  laid,  that  God  commanded  them 
to  be  circumcifed,  and  therefore  it  mull  have  bean 
right.  With  this  we  fully  agree;  but  God  has  no 
where  faid  thai  it  was  a  feal  of  the  righteoufnefs.  of 
faith  to  them.  A  man  may  as  well  believe  that  every 
baptized  infant  is  fealed  with  the  righteoufnefs  of  faith, 
though  he  may  afterwards  prove  to  be  a  profligate  infidel, 
as  that  circumciiion  placed  them  in  this  privileged  con- 
dition. He  mull  give  up  his  common  fenfs  to  believe 
either.  We  thei-efore  conclude,  that  if  Mr.  Worcefter's 
words  mean,  what  the  fame  exprellions  mean  when  ufei 
by  others,  he  has  applied  an  exprefiion  generally,  which 
the  apodle  applied  only  in  a  particular  cafe ;  which  v?a 
conilder  as  a  mifapplication  of  the  text. 

3.  We  have  charged  Mr.  Worcefter,  with  making 
the  apollle  cmduJe  'without  ^remifes.  This  we  are  nosv 
to  make  out.  In  order  to  render  it  plain  to  every  ca- 
pacity, we  will  again  fet  down  his  quotation.  "  He  re- 
ceived tlie  fign  of  circumcifion,  a  feal  of  the  righteouf- 
nefs of  faith,  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them 
that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcifed.''  The 
apoftle  is  here  made  to  fay,  that  Abraham  was  circum- 
cifed, fo  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  believers  that 
are  uncirciimcifed  !  We  afk,  in  the  name  of  common 
'iiiw^Kiy  why  it  was  necelTary  for  Abraham  to  be  circum- 
cifed^ in  order  to  conftitnte  him  the  father  of  believers 
that  are  uncivcumcijed  ?  If  there  can  be  any  other  mean- 
ing to  the  argument,  as  Mr.  Worcefter  has  placed  it  be- 
fore the  public,  we  confefs  we  have  not  difcernment 
enough  to  fee  it.  But  is  it  poflible  tliat  the  apoftle 
Ihould  reafon  at  this  rare  ?  He  certainly  did  not.  He 
is  placed  in  this  awkward  fituation  only  for  the  want  of 
having  his  argument  fairly  prefented.  In  order  to  fee 
the  force  of  his  reafoning,  the  following  words  which  be- 
gin the  quotation,  ought  to  be  conlidered  as  a  parenthti- 


C     UG     J 

^s,  as  they  really  are,  viz.  (And  he  received  the  fign  of 
circumcifioTii  afeal  of  the  righteoufnfs  of  the  faith  which  he 
hady  yet  being  unciraimcifed.)  The  fenfe  of  the  pafTage 
will  then  be  plain.  The  apoftle  ftates  his  argument 
thus  :  For  lue  fayy  that  faith  was  reckojied  to  Abraham  for 
righteoufnefs.  How  was  it  then  reckoned  P  when  he  was  in 
circurnci/ion,  or  in  uncircumcifton  ?  not  in  circumciftony  but 
in  uncircumcifton y  (and  he  received  the  fign,  &c.)  that 
he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believey  though  they 
be  not  circumcifedJ*  Here  the  argument  relumes  its 
native  force,  and  teaches  us  that  faith  was  reckoned  to 
Abraham  for  righteoufnefs,  when  he  was  in  uncircum- 
cifion  ;  fo  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  other  be- 
lievers, though  they  be  not  circumcifed.  Not  that  he 
received  circumcifion,  "  for  this  very  purpose,"  as 
Mr.  Worcefter  aflerts  (page  11)  to  quahfy  him  to  be  the. 
father  of  uncircumcifed  Gentile  believers. 

For  what  purpofe,  it  may  be  afked,  was  the  apoftle*s 
argument  in  this  mutilated  form  introduced  into  the 
difcourfes  before  us  'i  undoubtedly,  to  give  force  to  th« 
covenant  of  circumcifion.  If  it  were  circumcifioii 
that  conllitutcd  Abraham  the  father  of  believers,  it 
would  attach  a  degree  of  conlideration  to  that  rite, 
which  it  would  not  otherwiie  poflefs.  In  this  way,  it 
is  thought  to  aid  the  caufe  of  infant  baptifm.  But  we 
afk,  was  it  not  Abraham's  faith  which  he  had  long  be- 
fore his  circumcifion,  which,  according  to  the  apoftle-s 
argument,  conftituted  him  the  father  of  the  faithful.? 
He  being  the  firfl:  that  fubmitted  to  that  rite,  might 
conftitute  him  the  father  oi  the  circumcifion  ;  but  it  was 
his  FAITH  that  conftituted  him  the  father  of  believers. 

It  is  conceived  that  the  author  of  the  difcourfes 
might  with  as  much  propriety  have  argued  from  this 
paiTage  in  his  context  ;- — For  it  is  luritten,  Curfed  is  every 
ene  that  hangeth  on  a  tree  ,•  that  the  bleffing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jefus  Chrifi:'*  It 
would  be  im-pofTible  here  to  fee  the  propriety  of  this 
conclufion  as  it  now  ftands  before  us  :  it  is  equally  fo 
in  the  one  which  Mr.  Worcefter  has  introduced  above. 
But  place  this  in  its  proper  order,  and  it  will  alfo  re?*- 

*  Gul  iii.  J 3,  14. 


C    "7    ] 

fume  its  native  force.  Tiie  argument  /lands  thus. 
Chrijl  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curfe  of  the  laiUy  being 
made  a  curfe  for  us :  (for  it  is  witten,  Curfed  is  every  one 
that  hangeth  on  a  tree  :)  t/jdt  the  hleffing  of  Abraham 
might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jefus  Chrifi.  The 
bleffing  of  Abraham  does  not  come  on  the  Gentiles, 
becaufe  every  one  is  curfed  who  hangeth  on  a  tree  ; 
but  becaufe  Chrift  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curfe  of 
the  law.  So,  neither  was  Abraham  by  being  clrcum- 
cifed  conftituted  the  father  of  beUeving  Gentiles  wh© 
are  uncircumcifed  ;  but  by  believing  God,  and  having 
faith  reckoned  to  him  for  righteoufnefs,  when  he  was 
in  uncircumcilion.  We  now  leave  it  Avitli  a  candid 
public  to  determine,  whether,  in  his  zeal  to  fupport  his 
hypothefis,  Mr.  Worcefter  ha 9  not  entirely  miftaken  and 
mifreprefented  the  apoftle's  argument,  and  finally  drawn 
%  cancluOon  favourable  to  his  own  fchemc,  but  drawn 
it  without  any  premifes. 

From  Mr.  Worcefter*s  arguments  thus  corre^ed,  we 
fee  nothing  which  leads  to  the  conclufion  that  the  gofpel 
church  (compofed  of  profefling  believers  only,)  may  not 
be  coniidered  as  the  children  of  Abraham^  not  by  circum- 
cifion,  but  by  faith,  and  completely  bleffed  in  him  through 
Jefus  Chrift  ;  notwithftanding  the  covenant,  which  con- 
tained circumcifion,  and  all  the  other  Jewifh  rites^  has 
waxed  eld  and  vanifjcd  aivay.  If  our  relation  to  Abra- 
ham can  be  fuftained  on  no  better  ground,  than  that 
we  have  had  the  feal  of  the  covenant,  as  it  is  called, 
applied  to  us  in  our  infancy,  (whether  by  circimiciiion 
or  baptlfm  it  matters  not,)  it  will  leave  us  in  the  fame 
wretched  condition  of  the  unbelieving  Jews.  Let  us 
not  deceive  ourfelves  by  fpending  our  efforts  in  defend- 
ing the  Ihadow,  whilft  we  give  up  the  fubftance. 

They  which  be  of  faith ,  faith  the  apoftle,  are  bleffed 
nvith  faithful  Abraham  ;  and  they  nvhich  are  of  faith y 
the  fame  are  the  children  of  Abraham.  The  fcripture  hath 
eoncluded  all  under ftn,  thst  the  PRO?JiSE  BY  FAITH  OF  Je- 
sus Christ  might  be  givpn  to  them  that  believe. 
For  ye  are  all  the  children  cj  God  by  faith  in  Jefus  Chrifi, 
For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Chrifi,  have 
put  on  Chrij}.     There  is   neither  Je^  nor   Greek,  there  is 


L    lis    ] 

ite'ithey  hond mr  free^  there  is  neither  male  fitrfetnak  ;  for  )& 
mre  all  one  in  Chrijl  J(fis,  And  if  ye  be  Chrifi's,  then  are 
ye  Abraham  s  feed i  and  heirs  according  to  the promifeP  Every 
fentence  which,  we  hare  now  quoted,  feems  to  look 
with  a  forbidding  afjpec):  upon  the  member fliip  and 
baptifm  of  unbelievers.  If  the  apoflle  had  really  de- 
figned  to  have  barred  the  claim  of  infants,  and  all  other 
unbelievers,  he  could  fcarcely  have  ufed  language  more 
^ecifive.  He  has  firft  informed  us  that  Abraham  was 
blefled  in  believing  God.  He  believed  the  gofpel  that 
was  preached  to  him,  concerning  his  feed,  the  MelHah, 
in  whom  all  families  of  the  earth  flj$uld  be  hlejfed^  This 
glorious  promife  has  been  fulfilling  for  ages  ;  and  the 
blef!ing  cf  Abraham  ftill  comes  QVi  the  Gentiles  through 
Jefus  Chrift,  and  through  no  other  medium. 

The  apoftle  is  particularly  cai'eful  ta  eftabliili  this 
point,  that  Abraham's  j77zV.^  was  reckoned  to  him  for  righi- 
eoufnefsy  ivhen  he  ivcs  in  uncircumciftun.  By  this  he  has 
excluded  circumcifion  from  claiming  the  fmalleft  fhare 
cf  honour  in  the  falvation  of  Abraham,  or  in  his  being 
the  father  cf  othet  believers.  He  appears  equally 
cautious  in  difcriminating  the  charadters'  who  are  bleflT- 
ed  with  Abr%h:mi.  His  language  is,  That  God  would 
jtijlify  the  heathin  ihroit^h  faith.  He  adds>  So  then,  7  ll  l  Y 
WHICH  BE  OF  FAITH  are  blfjjed  with  faithful  Abrahar.i, 
Again,  Th,it  the  Hfjing  of  Abraham  jnight  come  on  the  Ge'n^ 
tiles  THROUGH  Jesus  Christ.  Vv'e  mufi:  find  fomething 
more  favourable  to  unbelievers  than  what  is  here  ex- 
preffedj  or  we  fhall  be  as  unable  to  blefs  them,  as  Ifaac 
was  Efau,  after  ke  had  given  the  blefilng  exclufively 
to  Jacob. 

Still  to  imprefs  the  fentiment  rhore  deeply,  the  apoftU 
again  refumes  his  fubject  towards  the  clofe  of  the  chap- 
ter, and  adds  ;  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God,  by  faith 
in  Chrifl  Jefits,  Not  by  defcending  from  Abraham,  nor 
any  other  believer  ;  nor  by  any  external  rite  whatever. 
For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Chri/iy  havtt 
^ut  on  Chrifi.  This  language  agrees  perfectly  with  the 
idea  of  their  being  all  proieilbrs.  But  how  a  paffive 
infant,  of  eight  days  old,  can  be  faid  \.o  put  on  Chrifl^  to 
*s  is  inconceivable..     It  might  be  faid  of  fuch  as  are  bap* 


C    lit    3 

lized  in  infancy,  that  Chrlft,  that  is,  his  name  is  put 
upon  them,  without  either  their  knowledge  or  confent ; 
but  how  it  can  be  rendered  actively,  you  have  put  on 
Chrifl,  is  difficult  to  reconcile  either  to  common  fenfe 
or  to  truth.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greeks  there  is 
frelthcr  hcTid  nor  frce^  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ;  FOR 
YE  ARE  ALL  ONE  IN  Christ  Jesus.  What  !  whole 
families !  believing  parents  (at  leafl  one  of  them)  and 
unbelieving  children  ?  faint's  and  finners,  all  one  in 
Chr'ift  ?  Strange  union  indeed  !  What  commitniott  hath 
ii^ht  with  darknefs  ?  and  whjt  concord  hat/j  Chri/l  with 
Bella!  ?  or  what ^ art  hath  he  that  helicveth  with  an  infidel?'^ 

If  St.  Paul  were  to  addrefs  a  modern  congregation, 
where  perhaps  feven-eighths  of  them  had  been  baptized 
in  infancy,  could  he  vrith  propriety  addrefs  them  as  he 
did  thcfe  Galatian  Chriftians  :  As  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Chrifl^  have  put  en  Chrif  ?  Te  are  all  one 
in  Chrijl  ?  Do  Piedobaptift  ChrilHans  themfelves  believe 
this  of  their  families  ?  Do  they  believe  that  their  bap- 
tized but  unregenerate  children  have  put  on  Chrift  ? 
I'hat  they  -ixxid.  their  children  of  this  defcription  are 
all  one  in  Chrifl:  Jefus  .?  They  certainly  do  not  treat 
them  as  if  they  believed  any  fuch  thing;  nor  can  we 
fuppofe  they  do  feriouily  believe  it.  Yet  if  tliey  do 
not.believe  it,  v/ill  they  not  feel  this  conviction,  that 
their  churches  differ  eiTentially  from  thofe  in  the  apof- 
tolic  age  ?  As  the  apoftles  themfelves  did  not  profefs 
to  know  the  hearts  of  others,  the  language  addrefled  to 
the  Galatians,  would  be  proper  to  any  body  of  baptized 
profefibrs  who  adled  in  character  as  Chriilians. 

It  orily  remains  here  to  obierve  a  few  words  upon  the 
text  itfelf.  And  if  ye  he  ChrifFs,  then  are  ye  Abraham's 
feedy  end  heirs  accordi?ig  to  the  promifi. 

We  have  already  feen  that  the  promlfe  here  men- 
tioned did  not  refer  to  the  covenant  of  circumcilion, 
but  to  a  previous  promife  made  to  Abraham,  and  con- 
firmed of  God  in  Chrift.  We  have  alio  feen  that  be- 
lievers only,  or  fuch  as  are  of  faith ^  are  considered  aa 
partaking  in  the  bkflings  of  that  promife.  But  if  there 
Ti'ere  nothing  in  the  context  to  determine  us  with  ra- 

*  a  Cor.  vi.  M,  ij. 


C    120    3 

^ard  to  the  fubje£b,  one  would  fuppofe  that  the  text  it- 
felf  fpeaks  a  language  irreconcileable  to  the  docSlrlne  of 
infant  baptifm.*  If  ye  he  ChriJTs  ;  this  determines  our 
title  to  the  bleifing.  This  determined  the  title  of  our 
anceftors,  and  this  will  determine  the  title  of  our  chil- 
dren. But  the  author  of  the  difcourfes  has  advocated 
a  fentiment  exceedingly  different  from  this  :  it  implies 
the  following  ;  If  ye  parents,  one  or  both  of  you,  be 
Chriji^s^  then  are  ycy  and  all  your  children,  Ahmham^sfeed^ 
and  heirs  according  to  the  prcmfe.  But  it  v/ill  be  alked. 
In  what  fenfe  can  unconverted  Gentiles  be  considered 
as  the  children  of  Abraham  ?  What  promife  has  God 
ever  made  to  Abraham  of  fpiritual  bleffmgs,  that  un- 
converted Gentiles  may  claim,  by  right  of  heirlhip  ? 
The  anfwer  muft  be,  None  at  all. 

Indeed  it  is  believed  that  Mr.  Worcefter  himfelf 
has  fully  conceded  this  very  point,  notwithftanding  all 
his  laboured  arguments  to  prove  that  the  baptized 
children  of  Gentile  believers  are  Abraham's  feed. 
Kis  words  are,  "  To  become  entitled  then  to  the  blef- 
iings  of  the  covenant,  Abraham  muft  walk  before  God, 
and  be  perfedl  j  muft  have  true  faith,  and  be  fin- 
cerely  obedient.  This  was  necelTary  as  it  refpecTted  him- 
felf perfonally,  and  equally  neceffary  as  it  rcfpeEled  his  chil- 
drenT  (page  36.)  If  "  tiue  faith"  was  necefiary  to  en- 
title Abraham  and  his  children  to  the  bleiiings  of  the 
covenant,  is  not  the  fame  neceffary  for  us  and  our  chil- 
dren ?  This  perfectly  agrees  with  the  language  of  the 
apoflle  in  the  text,  as  we  underftand  him.  Jf  y^^  hi 
Chrijl's^  that  is;»  have  "  true  faith"  in  him,  then  are  ye 
Abrahanis  feed,  i3fc.  No  Baptift,  we  believe,  ever  dif- 
puted  but  that  all  fuch^  whether  young  or  old,  as  have 
true  faith  in  Chrift,  are  Abraham's  fpiritual  feed,  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promife,  that  all  nations  fhould  be 
bleffed  in  his  seed.     It  appears  to  us,  that  many  of  our 

*■  I'hls  text  ftands  fo  fcntimentally  ojipofcd  to  Infant  baptifra,  that  it 
k»s  been  ?.  little  furprifing  that  Mr.  Worecfter  Ihould  choofe  it  as  the 
foundation  of  his  difcourfes.  He  muft,  vre  conceive,  have  thought  it 
more  friendly  to  his  fubje<S:  than  it  appears  to  us :  for  we  are  unwiiliu  j 
to  fuppofe  he  chofe  it  upon  the  prir.cipic  which  Secretes  is  faid  to  have 
chofun  one  of  his  wives,  the  noted  Xantipfiey  (one  of  the  frowardeft 
women  ia  the  world)  i,  e.  tojhcxu  hUJkill  in  mattmging  her* 


C    J«i    3 

^Pacdobaptifl: brethren  mliTiake  the  fubjeft  on  this  ground, 
That  the    promires    which    were   made  to   Abraham,  ^ 
which  refpe6ted  h\%  fpiritual fc&d  ojily^  they  apply  indil- 
criminately  to  the  natural  feed   of  Gentile  believers. 

In  the  ninth  of  Romans  it  is  faid,  Tkey  are  not  all  If-^ 
rael  whi  are  of  Ifrael ;  neither^  hecaufe  they  are  the  feed  of 
Ahrahamy  are  they  all  children*  They  %vho  are  the  children 
ffthejlejjj,  thefe  Are  not  tht  children  of  God  :  hut  thi  chil'- 
dren  of  the  pro  mi fe  are  counted  for  the  fted.*  Are  not  the 
children  of  Gentile  believers,  children  of  the  fief j^  as 
really  as  others  ?  If  fo,  the  apoftle  has  decided  the 
point,  that  they  are  not  the  children  of  God,  nor  the 
feed  of  Abraham  :  for  the  children  of  the  prcviife  are 
counted  for  the  feed.  By  thefe  we  think  no  perfon  can 
doubt,  but  the  apoftle  meant  fpiritual  pcribns,  as  dif- 
tingailhed  from  the  children  of  the  fleih.  This  perfeft- 
ly  correfponds  with  the  general  tenor  of  the  fcrip- 
tures.  This  will  alfo  affill  us  in  detenBining  who  «re 
intended  by  Abraham's  feed  in  the  text. 

On  the  whole,  we  cannot  perceive  that  a  lingle  blef- 
fing  is  promifed  to  any  unbeliever,  throughout  the 
whole  chapter  on  which  the  difcourfes  are  founded. 
We  therefore  conclude,  that  the  author,  in  applying; 
them  to  believing  parents,  and  their  unbelieving  oft- 
fpring  -,  and  by  endeavouring  to  prove,  that  they  are 
all  Abraham^ s  fed^  and  heirs  acc$rding  to  the  proruife,  has 
applied  them  in  a  fenfe,  which  neither  the  fcripture* 
in  general,  nor  the  apollle's  reafoning  throughout  the 
context,  will  juftify.  The  reader  will  judge,  whether  the 
preceding  reafoning  will  fiipport  this  conclulion  or  not. 

It  will  be  remembered,  that  we  propofed  in  the  be- 
ginning of  thefe  ftri<ftures  to  attempt  the  proof  of  two 
points  : 

1.  That  Mr.  Worceiler  had  miftaken  the  promife 
in  his  text,  and  reafoned  from  one  totally  dififerent  from 
the  one  which  the  apoftle  reafoned  from. 

2.  We  propofed  to  (liow,  that  his  application  of 
the^romife  to  believers  and  unbelievers,  or  to  believ- 
ing parents  and  unbelieving  children,  was  unfcriptural, 
and  contrary  to  the  apoftle's  reafoning. 

•  Rom.  ix.  6-  8. 
L 


[      122     ] 

On  the  firft,  we  have  fliown,  that  the  promhe  quoted 
by  the  apoftle  was  diftinifl,  in  its  nature  and  dtftgfi, 
from  the  one  on  which,  the  difcourfes  are  founded  j 
and  that  the  time  at  which  it  is  ftated  to  have  been 
given,  will  not  agree  with  the  covenant  of  circum- 
ciflon. 

On  the  fecond,  we  have  flioWn,  that  by  the  apoftle's 
reafoning  in  the  context,  and  other  fcripturcs,  the 
bleffing  of  Abraham  is  annexed  only  to  faith  :  That  it 
comes  on  Gentile  believers  individually,  and  not  other- 
wife  :  That  parents,  by  faith  in  Jefus  Chrift,  may  en- 
joy the  bleffing  of  Abraham,  while  their  unbelieving 
children  lie  under  all  the  miferies  of  the  curfe  :  That 
the  bleffing  of  Abraham  comes  on  believing  children, 
through  Jefus  Chrijly  and  not  through  their  parents  : 
That  they  are  not  faved  by  their  parents'  faith,  but  by 
their  own. 

If  the  two  preceding  points  have  been  dcmonftrated, 
it  is  all  that  we  undertook.  We  do  not  pretend  to 
have  confidered  all  Mr.  Worcefter's  arguments,  nor  to 
have  expofed  all  his  errors.  Our  limits  forbid  that  we 
fliould  enlarge  on  this  part  of  the  fubje<fi:.  We  have 
confclentiouily  endeavoured  not  to  mifreprefent  his  fen- 
timents  *,  if  it  floald  be  found,  in  any  inftance,  to  be 
the  cafe,  it  will  be'  Uncerely  regretted  when  pointed 
out. 

Ivlay  the  Spirit  of  the  living  God,  that  Spirit  which 
was  promifed  by  Jefus  to  his  difciples,  difcover  to  each 
of  us  his  errors,  by  leading  us  into  the  truth.  And  mar 
we  be  always  ready  to  receive  the  truth,  whenever  it  is 
prefented  to  our  minds,  although  it  may  crofs  our 
preconceived  opinions.  If  we  love  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift,  we  are  fulemnly  bound  to  keep  his  command- 
ments. In  order  to  thi&,  we  muft  be  willing  to  know 
what  they  are,  and  how  they  are  to  be  obferved.  And 
k'l  us  fee  to  It,  that  we  do  not  make  void  his  command- 
ments through  our  tradition. 

To  the  tribunal  of  public  opinion,  the  preceding  re- 
marks are  cheerfully  fubmitted.  And  were  it  not  for 
fome  charges  particularly  brought  againft  our  denom- 
ination in  the  difcourfes  before  as,  vt^e  ihould  here  take 


L     1^5     J 

»ar  leaTC  of  them  j  but,  under  prcfent  cIrcumftiiHces, 
we  fiiould  be  wanting  to  ourfelves,  not  to  attempt  * 
vindication.  We  mult  therefore  alk  the  reader's  pa- 
tience a  httle  longer,  hoping  that  he  will  candidlj^  at- 
tend to  what  we  have  to  fay  to  the  things  laid  to  our 
charge,  and  then  judge  whether  tliey  ought  to  be  placed 
to  our  account  or  not. 


SECTION     TI. 

The   Bapiijls  vindicated  from  the  Charges   brought   ng-r.njl 
them  by  the  Rev,  Samuel  Worcejler, 

J  O  reprove  a  Chriftian  brother,  and  to  do  it 
in  the  temper  of  the  gofpel  ;  and  efpeciallj,  >rhen  v.'e 
feel  ourfelves  injured  by  the  faults  v/hich  call  for  re- 
proof, is  by  no  means  one  of  the  leaft  difficult  duties  o^ 
our  holy  religion. 

If  the  things  of  which  we  are  ibout  to  complain  had 
emanated  from  avowed  enmity,  or  had  been  vocifer- 
ated only  by  the  tongue  of  flander,  they  had  never 
excited  any  other  emotions  in  our  minds,  than  pity  and 
filent  contempt  :  but  when  they  are  uDiered  upon  the 
public,  as  undeniable  fa(Sts,  and  fanc\ioned  too  by  ?11 
the  gravity  of  the  pulpit,  tliey  aftume  a  very  fericu'-.'and 
dangerous  afpeiSl:,  and  im.perioufly  call  us  to  fcif- defence. 

Onr  limits  will  not  allow  us  to  animadvert  on  all  that 
]Mr.  Worceiler  has  faid  againft  us  ;  and  even  the  few 
articles  which  we  do  touch  upon,  we  are  obliged  to  ban- 
die  ^vith  great  brevity. 

Without  particularly  noticing  feveral  preceding  re- 
marks, in  which  he  probably  aimed  his  Ihafts  at  the 
Baptifts  ;  yet,  as  he  neither  nam.ed,  nor  hit  any  one, 
we  Ihall  proceed  to  what  is  direclly  applied  to  us/ 

1.  In  a  note,  page  23,  we  are  charged  with  imbilv 
ing  the  error  of  the  ©Id  «  legal  Jews,"  by  uv.fcripturalh 
bletiditig  the  covenant  of  circumciiion  made  with  Abra- 
ham,  and  what,  is  called  the  Sinai  covenant,  together. 


I     J2*     3 

This  charge  comes  rather  with  an  ill  grace,  from  a 
Kian,  who  has,  throughout  the  difcourfes  before  us,  con- 
itniitly  blended  the  promifes  of  the  covenant  of  circum- 
ciiion,  with  the  promife  of  the  Meffiah,  made  to  Abra- 
ham, years  before  that  covenant  exifted.  From  this 
**  unfcriptural  blending"  of  thefc  two  covenants,  which 
in  their  nature  are  every  way  diftindl,  it  is  thought,  he 
has  given  the  chief  plaulibility  to  his  arguments,  which 
they  poiiefs.  Had  he  confined  himfelf  to  the  covenant 
of  circiimciiion,  he  could  not  v/ith  propriety  have  infer- 
red thole  great  blelTi ngs^  wlvlch  come  on  the  Gentiles, 
through  Jelus  Chrill,  under  the  gofpel  difpenfation. 

JBut  if  Mr.  Worcefter  has  done  wrong,  in  blending 
tw^  covenants  which  are  really  diftinct,  it  will  by  no 
means  exculpate  the  Baptlfts,  if  they  have  been  guilty  of 
the  fame.  How  far  this  charge  can  be  fiipported  wc 
know  not.  Had  it  been  accompanied  by  the  words  of 
the  writers  referred  to,  we  could  more  readily  have 
judged  of  its  accuracy.  This  would  alfo  have  given 
the  perfons  implicated,  if  living,  an  opportunity  to 
have  vindicated  themfelves.  But  it  now  refts  upon  the 
denomination  at  large. 

In  reply,  we  can  only  fay,  we  know  of  no  writer  on 
our  fide  of  the  controverfy,  who  has  blended  the  coy- 
eriants  referred  to,  any  fartlier  than  the  fcriptures  have 
blended  them.  What  Mr.  Worcefter  and  other  Paedo- 
baptiit  writers  call  the  Shiai  covenant^  wants  defining. 
They  fomctimes  fpcak  of  it  in  fuch  a  way  as  would 
naturally  lead  us  to  I'uppofe,  they  meant  the  ten  com- 
mandments, or  moral  law.  But  furely  thefe  comm.ands 
are  not  abolifhed  ?  The  moral  precepts  of  that  law 
riven  from  Sinai  can  never  be  abrogated.  If  by  the 
Sinai  covenant,  they  mean  what  the  apoftle  calls,  l^he 
law  of  csimmandmenU  contained  in  ordinances  •,*  we  afk. 
Was  not  circumcifion  blended  with  thefe  ordinances  } 
Yea,  was  not  this  the  principal  article  which  occalion- 
ed  the  "  enmity"  betv/een  Jews  and  Gentiles,  which 
Chrift  by  the  Gofpel  difpenfation  and  by  his  death 
abohflied  ?  That  circumciiion  was  blended  with  the 
ritual  of  Mofes,  is  clear  from  the   words  of  Chrift  t« 

♦   Ti^h.  n.  5,5.- 


[     125     ] 

the  Jews.      Mops  therefore^  faicl  lie,  give  tiKtyyou  ciKcutn- 
cijton  (not   bccauie  it   is  of  Mofes,  but   of  the   fathers) 
gnd  ye  on  the  fahhnth-day   circumclfe  a  man.      If  a  men  on 
the  fahhath-day    receive    circumc'Jtony     that    ike   law     cf 
Moses   should    not  be    broken-,    are  ye   atigry^    &c. 
"  The   unfcripturnl   blending    of  thefe    two   covenants 
together,  fays  Mr.  Worcefter,  has  been  a  moft  prolific 
fource  of  error.     From  this  fource  fprang  the  error  of 
the  legal   Jews,   in  former  ages  ;    and   from   the   fame 
fource   has  fprung   the  error  of  the  Antipxdobaptlfts, 
in  modern  times."     He  further   adds  ;   «  It   was  v;itk 
his  eye  upon  this  fource  of  error,  that  our  Lord,  whea 
in  difcourfe  with   the  Jews,   he  took  occafion  to  men- 
tion circumcifion,   the  original  feal   of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  was  particular  to   remind  them,   that   //  ivav 
mt  OF   Moses,   but   of   the   fathers."      How    Mr. 
Worcefter   came  by   his   information,  that  Chriil  Iiad 
his  "eye  upon  this   fource  of  error,"  we  know   not. 
We  can  fee  nothing   in  the  context  to  juliify  fuch  an 
opinion.     Chrift,  in  vindicating  himfclf  for  having  heal- 
ed a  man  upon  the  fabbath-day,  adverts  to  their  con- 
duct in  circumciilng  the  child  which  might  happen  to  be 
eight  days  old  on  the  fabbath.     This  was  certainly  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  Mofes,*  and  it  was  certainly  ac- 
cording to  the  law  given  to  the  fathers. f     How  then 
does  it  appear  that  they  were  in  an  error  about  circum- 
ciilng the  child  on  the  fabbath  .''  It  does   not  appear  at 
all.     Their  error  did  not  lie  in  this,  but   in   condemn- 
ing the  Saviour  for  doing  a  deed  which  no  more  mil- 
itated with  the  law  of  the  fabbath,  than  circumciilng 
the  child.. 

But  if  thefe  covenants  v/ere  fo  diftin<ft,  how  cams 
Mr.  Worcefter  himfelf  to  blend  them  }  He  confiders 
tlie  Sinai  tranfadlion  a  renewal  of  the  former  covenant. 
His  words  are,  "  At  Mount  Sinai,  the  Lord  appeared 
in  terrible  and  glorious  majefty,  and,  recognizing  the 
ranfomed  tribes  as  the  feed  of  Abraham,  renewed  with 
ihem  his  covenant  ;  and  gave  them  a  code  of  ftatutes  and 
ordinances,  called  alfo  a  corenant,  which  were  to  con- 
linue  until  the  Mefiiah  fhould  come,"  &:c.     What  Mr. 

*  Lev.  xii.  3.  f  Gen.  xvii  3«. 

3L2 


[     126     ] 

Worcefter  here  calls  a  renewal  of  the  covenant,   if  he 
refers  to  Exodus  xix.  5 — 8.  we  think  moft  likely  to  be 
the  covenant  which  the  prophet  Jeremiah  had  in  view, 
which  he   faid  GjJ  made    ivith  their  fathers  in   the  day 
that  he  took  them  by  the  hand,  to  bring  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  nvhich  my  covenant  they  brake ^  allhough 
I  was  an  hujhand  unto  the niy  faith  the  Lord.     The   Jews 
were  very  tenacious  of  the  law  or  ritual  of  Mofes.     They 
adhered  to  this  long  after  they  had  loft  the  fpirit  of 
obedience.     But   whether   it  were  this,   or  the  law  of 
douimandmenls  contained  in   ordifiances^  circumcifion  was 
connected  with  both.     And  if  circumcifion  was  not  con- 
tained   in  the  hand  writing  of  ordinances^  which   Chrift 
blotted  out^  and    nailed  to  his  crcfs,  we  think  it   may  be 
difficult  to  prove,  that  it  has  ever  been  aboliilied.     We 
do  not  fuppofe  from    this,   that   any    abfolute  promiie 
which  God  ever  made   to  Abraham,   or  any  otlier  per- 
fon,  has  ever  been   aboliihed.     Conditional  promifes, 
■fuch  as  LIr.   Worcefter  tells  us  thofe  were  which  ref- 
pecled   the  falvation   of  Abraham's  feed,  and  the  feed, 
of  other  believers,  can  be  obligatory  upon  the  proniifery 
only  by  the   conditions  being  fulfilled.     And  as  he  has 
ftated  thefe  conditions,  it   does  not   appear  that  either- 
Abraham  or  Ifaac,  or  any  of  their  poflerity  ever  fulfilled 
them.     If  they  failed,  v^e  fericufiy  doubt  whether  any 
ether    believer   has  ever  complied  with  them  fully  :  at 
leaft,  it  wants  proof. 

In  all  denominations,  fome  men  difer  in  opinion  from 
others,  and  fome  have  errors  which  it  would  be  ungen- 
erous to  charge  upon  the  whole  :  but  v/e  think  we  are 
authorized  to  fay,  that  the  Baptifts  believe,  that  every 
promife  which  God  made  to  Abraham  refpetSting  his 
natural  feed  has  been,  or  will  be  fulfilled,  in  cafe  the 
conditions  on  their  part  are  fulfilled  j  but  that  the 
promifes  fecured  to  Abraham  by  covenant  refpedling 
the  Mefliah,  and  the  blefling  of  the  nations  in  him,  ?v- 
tjjain  unahered.  Thefe  promifes,  which  include  all  Abra- 
ham's fpiritual  feed,  are  abfolute.  They  are  in  Chriil 
Jefus  ♦,  and  in  him  they  are  yea  and  amen.  "VYe  conceive, 
that  it  no  more  depended  on  Abraham's  faith  whether 
tibe  Mefliah  fliould  fpringfrom  him,  or  whether  the  na* 


C     127     ] 

tions  lliould  be  bleiTed  in  the  promifed  feed,  th^t  is,  in 
Chrirt,  by  believing  the  gofpel,  than  it  did,  whether 
Chrift  (lioLild  rife  from  the  dead  on  the  third  day. 

But  has  not  the  author  before  us  drawn  a  Httie  from 
this  "  proline  fource,"  and  blended  two  other  covenants 
which  are  Rianifeftly  diftin(St  ?  We  mean  the  covenant 
of  circumcllion,  and  the  new  covenant  mentioned  in  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah.*  Speaking  of  the  latter,  he 
fays,  '*  This  is  called,  indeed,  a  new  covenant,  and  on 
this  account  has  fometimes,  for  vrant  of  proper  attention 
to  the  fubjeft,  been  fuppofed  to  be  different  from  any 
covenant  before  eilablilhed  with  the  clmrch.  It  is 
called  a  nrw  covejiant,  becaufe  oi  its  revival  and  renewal 
after  it  had  been  for  along  time  greatly  obfcured,"  t<c, 
(page  18.)  But  after  all  his  ingenious  labour  to  prove 
his  point,  he  iias  failed  •,  and  in  the-verynext  page,  with 
much  fceming  reluiStance,  conceded  to  an  important 
ditftronce.  Speaking  of  the  new  covenant,  he  fays, 
"  In  the  InA  inftance,  indeed,  there  is  an  intlt:tation  of  a 
renewal  of  hearty  in  thofe  with  whom  the  covenant  is 
eilablifhcd."  "  An  intimation^''  Sir  ;  is  this  all  ?  Is 
there  not  a  policive,  folemn  engagement  ?  This  is  an 
article,  which  muil  forever  diftinguifli  tiiis  new  cove- 
nant. "  An  intimation  of  a  renewal  of  heart  1"  We 
could  not  have  believed,  had  v/e  not  {^^tw  it  from  his 
own  pen,  that  the  "  Paftor  of  the  Tabernacle  Church 
in  Salem,"  could  ever  have  fpoken  with  fuch  cold  indif- 
ference Q^i  the  v;ork  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  renewing 
the  heart. 

That  we  have  properly  "  attended  to  the  fubjefl,** 
we  prefjft-ie  not  to  fay  ;  but  this  v/e  are  free  to  declare, 
that  it  appears  to  us,  that  God  himfelf  has  difcinguiflied 
this  covenant  not  only  from  the  one  contrafted  with  it, 
but  from  all  others  v.'iiich  preceded  it.  Mark  the  lan- 
guage 1 — The  days  come,  faith  the  Lonlythat  I iiili  make  a 
K£w  COVENANT ;  not  revive  an  old  one.  /  ivill put  my  laitj 
in  their  in-ward  parts i  and  lurite  it  in  their  hearts.  Thii 
is  not  the  tenor  of  any  former  covenant.  Is  there  any 
fuch  engagement  in  that  of  which  circumciiiou  was  the 

♦  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  32, 


[     U»     1 

feal  ?  The  iijm  of  that  covenant  was  outward^  in  the 
flefh.  Thoufands  had  this  fign,  which  in  thefe  dif- 
courfes  is  called  thefea/  cf  the  r'lghteoitfnefs  of  faith  ^  who 
never,  as  we  have  aay  reafon  to  believe,  had  any  true 
faith.  In  this  new  covenant,  all  knoix)  the  Lord,  from 
the  lead  to  the  gvesteji,  A  vaft  proportion  of  thofe  who 
were  interefted  in  the  covenant  of  circumcihon,  and 
had  that  feal  put  upon  them,  we  muft  conclude,  if  we 
believe  the  fcriptures,  never  knew  the  Lord.  To  fay 
the  leaft,  this  covenant  is  quite  as  diftin^t  from  the 
Abrahamic  covenant,  as  that  was  from  the  covenant 
which  God  made  with  the  Ifraelites,  when  he  took 
them  by  the  hand  to  lead  them  out  of  Egypt. 

2.  Another  charge,  though  not  the  next  in  order, 
which  Mr.  Worcefter  has  exhibited  againft  the  "  Ana- 
baptifts,"  as  he  very  faftidioufly  cr/lis  us,  is  fo  clofely 
conne£^ed  with  this,  that  we  proceed  next  to  coniider  it. 

"  Tbey  deny,  faith  he,  God's  everlafting  covenant  of 
fuperabounding  grace,  the  grand  charter  of  the  inher- 
itance and  privileges  of  his  people,  the  fource  of  blef- 
ilngs  to  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth."  (page  78.) 

If  there  were  any  law  in  force  to  burn  heretics,  I 
know  not,  my  brethren,  how  we  fhould  feel  to  have 
fuch  a  charge  as^  this  fulminated  againft  us  ;  but  as 
things  now  are,  I  am  mclined  to  think,  we  fhall  be  able 
to  meet  it  with  a  good  degree  of  cahnnefs. 

But  on  what  is  this  dreadful  charge  founded  ?  The 
writer  has  not  condefcended  to  inform  us  ;  he  has  made 
the  afiertion,  and  gone  on  his  way.  He  has 'left  us  to 
gather  his  meaning  from  the  general  tenor  of  the  dif- 
courfes  before  us.  From  thefe  we  are  led  to  fuppofe 
he  muft  refer  to  our  not  allowing,  that  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham,  which  obliged  him  to  circumcife 
all  the  males  born  in  his  houfe  and  bought  with  money, 
obliges  Gentile  believers  to  baptize  their  infants,  both 
male  and  female.  This  we  do  not  believe  :  we  cannot 
believe  it.  But  is  this  full  proof,  that  we  "  deny  God's 
everlafting  covenant  of  fuperabounding  grace  ?"  We 
can  by  no  means  admit  it.  Our  confciences  bear  us  wit- 
nefs,  that  we  do  not  knowingly  deny  any  covenant 
which  God  has  revealed  in  his  word  5  nor  do  we  feci 


I     1«9     ] 

any  other  convicftion  in  our  minds  from  this  terrible 
charge,  than  of  the  miftaken  zeal  of  its  author.  No,  we 
have  ever  acknowledged  "  God's  everlafting  covenant" 
wiiich  contained  the  promife  of  the  Meffiah,  the  only 
«  fource  of  blcilings  to  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth." 
We  mult  therefore  view  with  the  deepeft  regret,  a  de- 
claration {o  evidently  unfounded  ;  si  declaration  pecul- 
iarly calculated  to  inflame  the  pailions,  and  inereafc  the 
unhappy  prejudices  of  thofe  wdio  differ  from  us. 

Nor  is  it  true,  that  we  deny  what  is  called  the 
<«  Abrahamic,"  or  covenant  of  circumcifion.  We  think 
we  acknowledge  it  in  its  full  extent,  as  ftated  by  the 
infpired  writers,  as  really  as  our  brethren  do.  It  is  true, 
we  do  not  acknowledge  all  the  inferences  they  draw 
from  it.  But  is  this  denying  the  covenant  itfelf  ?  Might 
-  we  not  with  as  much  propriety  charge  them  with  a 
"  denial"  of  the  ordinance  of  baptifm,  becaufe  they  do 
not  comply  with  our  views  of  it,  as  for  them  to  churge 
us  with  tienying  God's  covenant,  becaufe  we  under- 
ftand  it  differently  from  themfelvcs  .'' 

Some  of  our  reafons  for  difbelieving  that  Gentile 
Chriftians  are  under  the  covenant  of  circumciiion,  a* 
the  feed  of  Abraham  were,  are  founded  on  the  refult 
of  the  firft  Chriftian  council,  ftated  in  the  ivth  of  Acts, 
as  may  be  feen  in  what  follows. 

When  certain  men  were  come  from  Judea  to  Artti- 
och,  they  taught  the  brethren,  who  were  Gentile 
believers,  that  except  they  were  circumdfed  after  the  man- 
ner cf  AlcfeS)  they  could  not  be  faved.  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas withftood  them,  but  could  not  convince  them.  It  was 
finally  concluded  to  fend  a  deputation  to  the  apoftles  and 
elders  at  Jerufalem.  And  after  much  confultation  this 
was  the  refult  :  For  it  feemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  to  us,  to  lay  on  you  no  greater  burden  th^n  thefe  nectjfary 
things  i  th.ii  ye  ahjlain  from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and 
from  blood,  and  from  things  flrangled,  and  frzm  fornica^ 
tion^  from  lohich  if  ye  keep  yourfelves,  yejhall  do  wclL 
Fare  ye  luell. 

By  the  refult  of  this  council,  we  fee  circumcifion 
totally  given  up,  as  it  refpefted   the  Gentiles,  and  r.» 


C     1»G     ] 

fubftitute  named  in  its  room.  Had  there  been  but 
a  few-  Paedobaptifts  in  that  council,  it  is  thought  they 
would  have  iettled  the  bufmefs  at  once.  How  eafily 
they  might  have  ftopped  the  mouths  of  thofe  fticklers 
for  circumcifion  !  It  would  have  been  only  to  have 
ufed  the  modern  argument,  that  baptifm  is  placed  in 
the  room  of  circumcifion.  That  as  they  ufed  to  circum- 
cife  their  children,  (that  is,  the  males)  they  had  need 
only  to  baptize  them.  It  is  perfe<fl:ly  unaccountable 
that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  while  contending  at  Antioch 
againft  circumcifion,  Ihould  never  once  think  of  this  ar- 
gument. Paul  was  certainly  a  very  accute  reafoner. 
In  general  we  find  him  to  haTe  fully  comprehended  his 
fubjeft,  and  alfo  to  have  availed  himfelf  of  the  befl  to- 
pics of  argument.  He  feems  in  this  infl:ance  to  have 
neglected  the  only  rational  ground  of  defence.  But  is 
it  not  pafling  flrange,  that  not  one  m  the  council,  which 
was  compofed  of  nearly  all  the  apoflles  and  elders  of 
the  Chriftian  church,  fhould  ever  once  have  mentioned 
the  only  argument  which  would  have  fatisfied  or  con*- 
founded  their  opponents  ?  Tou  cannot  now  talk  with 
t  Paedobaptifl  five  minutes  on  the  fubje^l,  but  he  will 
tell  you,  «  baptifm  came  in  the  room  of  circumcifion." 
There  never  was  a  cafe  which  more  urgently  called  for 
this  argument,  nor  when  it  might  have  been  ufed  with 
greater  profpe^St  of  complete  fuccefs.  How  can  we  ac- 
count for  its  omiffion  ?  In  one  way,  we  conceive,  and 
in  one  only  :  it  had  then  probably  ho  exiflence. 

Had  this  argument  been  brought  forward  in  that 
council,  it  mufl  have  produced  the  happiefl  efFe(Sts.  It 
would  have  cut  like  a  two-edged  fword  ;  for  it  would 
not  only  have  fiiilled  thofe  Judaizing  Chriftians,  who 
were  clamouring  about  circumcifion,  but  would  alfo 
have  filenced  every  objection  v/hich  any  Antipisdobap- 
till:  could  have  raifed. 

We  wifli  here  to  afk  one  queflion,  and  leave  it  with 
our  Psedobaptifl  friends  to  anfwer  ;  and  we  hope  they 
will  anfwer  it  confcientioufly,  in  the  fear  of  God. 
Should  a  number  of  thedefcendants  of  Abraham,  at  the 
prefent  day,  embrace  the  gofpel,  and  embody  into  a 
oJiurch  ftate,  after  which  a  number  of  Gentile  believers 


C    151    3 

ikould  propofe  to  unite  with  them  ;  but  in  order  to  this 
union,  they  fliould  infift  upon  their  being  circumcifed 
after  the  manner  cf  Mofes  :  £hould  both  parties  agree  to 
refer  their  difficulties  to  a  council,  to  be  compofed 
wholly  of  Paedobaptifts, — we  wifh  to  aik,  whether  they 
do  not  think  that  their  principal  argument  with  thefe 
believing  Jews  would  be,  <*  that  circumcilion  had  been 
fuperfeded  by  baptifm  ?"  Or,  in  other  words,  <'That 
they  were  now  tobaptize  their  infants,  inilcad  of  circum- 
ciiing  them  f"  We  wifli  not  to  anticipate  their  anfwer 
any  farther  than  juft  to  fay,  that  fhould  they  not  avail 
themfelves  of  this  argument,  they  would  reafon  very 
xlifferently  with  them,  from  what  they  do  with  us. 
Anfwer  it  as  they  may,  they  muft,  we  think,  either 
differ  from  themfelves,  or  from  the  council  at  Jerufa- 
lem. 

We  beg  the  reader's  indulgence  here,  while  we  di- 
^^refi  a  few  moments  from  our  fiibje<Sl:,  to  anfwer  an  ob- 
jeiftion  which  has  often  been  brought  by  Ptedobaptifts, 
againll:  giving  up  circumcifion  without  a  fubftitute. 
They  have  ccnftantly  argued,  that  the  Jews  were  fo 
tenacious  of  this  privilege  for  their  children,  that  they 
would  never  have  peaceably  refigned  it,  without  fome- 
thing  in  its  room  ;  and  yet  it  has  often  been  faid,that 
there  was  never  any  difpate  about  it.  INIr.  Edward?, 
reafoning  upon  this  ve/y  point,  has  the  following  re- 
marks :  *'  If,"  faith  he,  "we  take  into  confideration  the 
character  of  thofe  perfons,  among  whom  this  cuOom 
had  prevailed,  and  among  whom  it  is  fuppofed  to  have 
ceafed,  we  (l^all  have  fuiiicient  reafon  to  think  it  impof- 
fible,  that  a  cuftom  of  this  nature  fiiculd  be  abrogated, 
and  they  not  oppofi  aftngle  word.**"*  Will  not  the  reader 
afk.  Had  Mr.  Edwards  never  read  the  xvfh  chapter  of 
A(Sts  ?  Had  he  never  obferved  that  the  very  firil:  dif- 
ficulty in  the  Chriftian  church  which  required  the  in- 
tervention of  a  council,  was  occalioned  by  a  contention 
raifed  about  circumciiion  by  certain  JewiiJ^j  believers  ? 
We  fee  nothing  in  the  fcriptures  to  juflify  the  opioion, 
that  the  Jews  were  tenacious  of  this  privilege,  any 
©therwife,  than  as  they  cotiiidered  it  an  ordinance   of 

*  Caad.  RaiT.  p.  6«. 


God,  which  they  were  bound  to  obferTC  on  pain  of 
the  divine  difpleafure.  It  appears  to  us,  that  Paedobap^ 
tifts  rate  the  privilege  much  higher  than  ever  the  Jews 
did.  Peter  certainly  confidered  it  as  a  yoke,  and  a 
grievous  one  too  ;  which  neither  t^^ir  fathers  nor 
tkey  were  able  to  bear. 

It  leems  to  be  generally  concluded  by  Piedobaptifts, 
that  the  only  reafon  why  the  believing  Jews  made  no 
difficulty  about  the  abrogation  of  circumcilion,  was, 
'that  infant  baptifm  was  fubftituted  in  its  room.  But 
if  other  Jewifh  believers  viewed  it  as  Peter  did,  as  a 
yoke,  is  it  not  probable,  when  they  were  brought  into 
the  pure  liberty  of  the  gofpei,  they  would  be  willing  to 
difpenfe  with  fuch  a  yoke  of  bondage  ? 

We  wiili  the  reader  ferioufly  to  confider  the  two  fol" 
lowing  obfervations  : 

1.  That  the  apoftles  had  continually  to  contend 
with  Judaizing  Chriftians,  on  the  fubjedt  of  circum- 
cifion,  although  Mr.  Edwards  and  others  will  not  allow 
that  they  "  oppofed  a  (ingle  word." 

2.  That  in  all  the  inftances  in  which  the  apoftles 
had  to  oppofe  the  advocates  for  circumcifion,  they  nevet* 
t)nce  made  ufe  of  this  argument,  that  the  baptifm  of  in- 
fants was  fubftituted  in  its  room. 

Both  of  thefe  remarks  will  be  confirmed  by  a  careful 
examination  of  the  following  fcriptures  :  Except  ye  be 
€ircumcifedi  and  keep  the  law  of  Mofes  ye  cannot  befaved,* 
Thou  fee/},  brother ,  htw  many  thoiifaiid  of  the  Jews  there  are 
*which  believe  ;  and  they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law  :  and 
they  are  irformed  of  thee,  thcrt  thou  teachejl  all  the  Je'ws 
which  are  ahnong  the  Gentiles y  toforfake  Mojcs,  faying,  that 
THEY  OUGHT  NOT  TO    CIRCUMCISE    THEIR  CHJLDREN:f 

See  alfo  the  apoftle's  exhortation  to  the  Galatians  : 
Stand  fajly  therefore,  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Chrift  hath 
made  us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of 
bondage.  Behold,  I  Paul  fay  unto  you,  that  IF  YE  BE  CIR- 
CUMCISED Christ  shall  profit  ycu  nothing4  To 
the  Philippians  he  faith,  Beware  of  dogs,  beware  of  evil 
workers,   beware  of  the  concifion,  ^f.§      And  to    Titus, 

•  Afti  XY.  f,  J.  f  A^s  xxl.  io,  21.  }  Gal.  V.  1,  X. 

%  PlxiL  iii.  2. 


C     13S     ] 

Thcfi  are  many  unrtiU  nnd  vain  talkers  and  deceiver!^  ES- 
PECIALLY THEY  OF  THE  CIRCUMCISION  ;  ichofe  niouths 
muj}  he  flopped;  ivho  fubv:rt  luhle  hcuftSj  teaching  ihingi 
%uhich  they  ought  7iot^  for  filthy  lucre^sfake* 

Can  any  man  feriouily  confider  thcfe  pafTages,  with 
many  oihers  of  the  lame  import,  and  then  conclude, 
th.it  the  Jews  made  no  difficulty  ahout  giving  up  clr- 
cumcilion  ?  that  they  did  not  "oppofc  a  fingle  word  ?'* 
We  fhould  think,  that  we  were  only  beating  the  air  to 
reafon  with  fuch  a  man. 

If  our  reafonings  on  this  head  (hould  produce  no 
other  effect,  will  they  not  exonerate  us  from  the  un- 
chriitian  charge,  that  we  "  deny  God's  everlafting  cov- 
enant ?"  Feeling  ourfelves  acquit,  v/e  leave  the  author 
to  anfwer  it  to  his  God,  and  to  his  confcicnce. 

3.  "  They  deny  (faith  he)  the  church  of  God, 
which  was  formed  in  the  family  of  Abra]iam,"'^c.f 

How  has  Mr.  Worcefter  proved  this  ^.  How  !  by 
his  own  aiT  rtion,  as  he  has  the  moil:  of  his  otlier 
charges.  We  are  obliged  to  fmd  out  his  meaning,  if  we 
can,  from  the  general  drift  of  his  difcourfes.  As  this 
charge  immediately  follows  the  one  we  have  juft  been 
confidering,  it  is  probably  drawn  from  the  fame  prem- 
ifes.  And  in  anfwer  to  it  we  need  only  fay,  we  are  not 
confcious  of  denying  any  thing  refpecting  the  "  church 
formed  in  Abraham's  family,"  which  the  fcriptures 
eftabl'ih,  or  w'hich  reafon  requires  us  to  believe.  We 
know  of  nothing  on  whicli  the  charge  can  be  founded, 
but  what  has  bec.'n  obviated  under  the  preceding  article, 
unlefs  it  hz  this ;  that  we  do  not  believe  the  gofpel 
church  to  be  a  mere  continuation  of  the  old  Jewi/h,  iDut: 
a  fpiritual  houfe  built  up  of  lively  ftont*;.  We  conceive 
the  charge,  therefore,  as  unfounded  as  it  v/ouid  be  to 
charge  us  with  denying  that  Great  Britain,  with  which 
we  were  once  connected,  was  a  lawful  government,  be- 
caufe  we  are  not  now  under  it,  but  enjoy  different  and 
greater  privileges,  under  a  different  coni^it^tion. 

Without  "  difplaying  any  thing  like  a  fpirit  of  perfe- 
cution,  or  even  of  uncharitablenefs,"  (fee  pagg  78>) 
Mr.  Worcefter  proceeds  to  fay, 

*  Tit.  1.  10,  n.  i  ibli. 

M 


t     iS4     3 

4.  <<The  grand  provifion,  which,  in  his  infinite 
wifdom  and  grace,  Jehovah  has  been  pleafed  to  mak^ 
for  the  prefervation  of  a  righteous  feed  upon  earth,  and 
for  the  maintenance  and  promotion,  from  age  to  age,  of 
his  caufe  and  kingdom  in  this  hoftile  world,  they  not  only 
denyy  BUT  OPENLY  contemn."  Is  it  not  a  profanation 
of  language  to  talk  of  "  charitablenefs"  towards  any  feci 
of  profefling  Chriftians,  and  at  the  fame  time  to  charge 
them  not  only  with  denying y  but  openly  contemning  the 
grand  provifion  which  God  has  gracioufly  made,  for  the 
promotion  of  his  caufe  and  kingdom  in  the  world  ? 
This  charge,  however,  appears  to  us  fo  totally  unfound- 
ed, and  fo  far  from  that  fpirit  of  meeknefs,  which  the 
love  of  Chrift  infpires,  that  we  fliall  attempt  no  other 
vindication,  but  a  folemn  appeal  to  fa6ts,  and  to  the 
feelings  of  our  fellow-men.  Let  thofe,  who  are  bed 
acquainted  with  our  fentiments,  with  our  doftrine,  with 
our  daily  converfation  and  pra£tice,  teftify,  if  they  think 
us  the  open  deniers  and  contemners  of  the  provifion  which 
God  has  made  for  the  "  promotion  of  his  caufe  and 
kingdom  in  the  world."  Let  the  thoufands  in  Amer* 
ica,  whom  God  has  gracioufly  condefcended  to  convert 
by  our  miniftry,  teftify,  if  they  have  ever  {^en  any  thing 
in  our  conduct  towards  themfelves  or  others,  which 
could  juftify  fuch  a  charge.  Let  the  converted  Hin- 
doos of  Hindoftart  declare,  if  they  think  the  men  who 
have  left  their  friends,  their  country,  and  almoft  every 
enjoyment  held  dear  by  civilized  man,  to  publifti  in 
thofe  benighted  regions  the  precious  name  of  a  Saviour  : 
let  thefe  teftify,  if  they  have  ietfi  any  thing  in  them, 
which  looks  unfriendly  to  the  promotion  of  the  caufe 
•f  God  in  the  world.  Although  we  have  much  reafon 
to  lament  the  languor  of  our  zeal  in  this  precious  caufe, 
yet  our  confciences  bear  us  witnefs  in  the  light  of  God, 
that  we  love  and  pray  for  its  profperity  ;  and  whilft 
thus  unjuftly  charged,  we  think  we  can  rejoice,  that  our 
jitdgment  is  ivith  the  Lordy  and  our  work  ivith  cur  God, 

5.  Thfe  author  of  the  difcourfes,  ftill  continuing  his 
jftrain  of  accufation,  adds — *<  They  deny  and  contemn  the 
grace  which  is  fo  kindly  and  fo  condefcendingly  offered 

*  Ifa.  xlii.  4. 


C    iss    ] 

for  the  fpiritual  renovation  and  everlaftlng  falvation  of 
the  feed  of  the  church."  (page  79.) 

An  inqulfitive  mind,  if  permitted,  would  naturally 
aik  two  or  three  queftions  upon  this  article.  Do  not 
the  fcripture3  consider  the  church  as  the  brUe,  the  Lawb*s 
^unfe,  and  the  Saviour  himfelf  as  the  Bridegroom  ? 
Wh^t  feed  then  has  the  church,  that  are  not  "  renovat- 
ed ?'*  Has  the  church,  properly  fpealdng,  any  children 
but  fpiritual  ones  ?  What  grace  is  that  fo  '*  kindly  offer- 
ed," which  the  Baptifts  "  deny  and  contemn  ?"  And  to 
whom  is  it  offered  ?  to  parents  for  their  children,  or  to 
children  for  themfelves  ?  We  know  of  no  other  grace, 
nor  can  we  conceive  of  any  which  the  author  can  have 
reference  to,  but  the  grace  of  irifant  hapt'ifm»  We  know 
of  nothing  which  diffinguiflies  the  children  of  Paedo- 
baptifts  from  the  children  of  other  believers,  only  their 
baptifm.  It  will  be  admitted,  that  there  are  unworthy 
profeiTors  in  all  denominations,  from  whom  it  would  be 
irnproper  and  dinngenuous  to  form  a  judgment  of  the 
whole.  But  it  is  not  perceived,  that  Pxdobaptifls  in 
general  difcover  any  more  folicitude  for  the  eternal  fal- 
vation of  tlieir  children,  than  what  is  apparent  in  other 
Chriftians.  Do  they  more  generally  reffrain  them  from 
the  vanities  of  the  world  }  Or  do  they  pray  more  fre- 
quently, or  more  fervently  for  them  than  others  ?  They 
may  indeed  prefent  their  fupplication  upon  a  difierent 
footing  from  what  the  Baptifts  do.  They  may  plead 
their  covenant  relation  to  God  ;  that  the-^  have  Abraham 
to  their  father  :  whereas  others  have  nothing  to  plead 
for  theirs  but  the  merits  of  a  Saviour,  or  whiu  is  call- 
ed "  the  uncovenanted  mercy  of  God."  An  obfervation 
made  by  Paul,  in  his  epiftle  to  the  Romans,  may  caft 
fome  light  upon  the  fubjedl.  J^Fhat  advantage  then^  faid 
he,  hath  the'  Jew  ?  Or  ivhat  profit  is  there  of^circumcifion  ? 
Much  every  ivay  ;  chiefiy^  becanfe  that  unto  them  ivere  com- 
mitted the  oracles  of  God*  If  to  enjoy  the  oracles  of 
God  was  the  chief  advantage  which  the  circumcifed  Jew 
had  above  others  •,.  and  "  baptifm  places  children  in  the 
fame  relation  to  the  church  as  circumcifion  did,"  it  will 
lie  dijScult,  we  believe,  to  point   out  any  great  advan^ 

•"B-om.  iii.  1,2, 


I     1S6     ] 

tages,  which  the  children  of  Paedobaptirts  enjoy,  whick 
are  not  equally  enjoyed  by  others. ..,  The  oracles  of  God, 
as  far  as  we  know,  are  as  freely  and  fally  enjoyed  bv 
the  children  of  the  Baptiiis,  as  by  any  others.  St. 
Paulj  in  another  of  his  epiftles,  gives  ns  his  opinion  of 
the  real  value  of  all  the  privileges  to  be  derived  from 
tiie  covenant  of  circurnciQon.  Thmgh  I  might  nifj,  faith 
he,  htive  confidence  in  the  jlepD.  If  ony  other  man  ihinheth  he 
hath  ivhereof  he  may  trujl  in  theJlc/Jj^  I  more,  Circum- 
fifed  the  eighth  dcey,  of  the  flock  f  Ifracli  rf  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
Jjniiniafi  Hchreiu  of  the  Hehrtnjcs^  C5*f.  But  ^vh  at  things 
luere  gain  to  me  I  counted  Ifs  for  Chrifi.  Ten  douhtlefsy 
und  1  count  nil  things  but  'ofs,fcr  the  excellency  of  the  knoivU 
tdge  of  Chrijl  Jfns  my  Lord  ;  for  'whom  I  have  fufftred  tht 
Ifs  of  all  things^  and  do  count  them  but  dung  that  I  may 
'ivin  ChriJl.-\  We  very  much  doubt,  whether  any  per- 
ibns  who  were  ever  truly  hurabled  before  God,  under 
a  fenfe  of  their  guilt  and  unworthinefs,  then  felt  as 
if  they  had  any  thing  to  plead  but  pure  mercy.  All 
their  felf-exalting  fchemes,  founded  upon  their  fuppofed 
covenant  relation  to  God,  at  once  difappeared,  and  thofe 
things  which  before  they  ha(J  reckoned  upon  as  enti- 
tling them  to  divin^B  favour,  they  ceunted  but  dung,  that 
ihey  might  ivin  Chrifl. 

The  foilovr'ing,  founds  very  different  to  us,  from  the 
fiiyle  of  the  New-Tellament  writers,  viz.  Conditional 
prcmift's  to  parents,  by  which  their  children  may  or  may 
not  become  "  fubje^ts  of  grace."  (p^^ge  38.)  «  Grace 
^o  kindly  offered  to  us  for  our  children."  (page  77.) 
And  *<  grace  offered  for  the  fpiritual  renovation  of  the 
y^W  of  the  church."  (p^ge  79.)  This  language  is  about 
as  unintelligible  to  a  Baptirt,  as  that  was  to  Neheraiah, 
which  was  I'poken  by  the  children  of  thofe  Jews  who 
had  married  wives  of  AQidod,  &c.f  We  hence  leave  it 
to  thofe  who  can  better  underftand  it  ;  and  proceed  to 
his  next  charge. 

6.  "  The  great  body  of  God's  vifible  profefling  peo- 
ple, even  the  most  enlightened,  and  the  most 
FAITHFUL,  for  hundreds  of  years,  they  utterly  fet  afide, 

*  rhil.  i*i.  4,  J,  7,  S.  t  Niheiv.ah  iUi.  23,  %^. 


[     137     2 

as  conftituting  no  part  of  the  true  church  of  Chrift,  but 
©nly  a  part  of  Antichrift." 

We  very  much  regret,  that  Mr.  Worcefter  fhould 
throw  out  fuch  an  unqualified  charge,  without  produ- 
cing a  fcrap  of  proof  to  fupport  it.  Can  we  fuppofe,  that 
he  ferioufly  believed  this  to  be  the  fentiment  of  the 
Baptifts  in  general  ?  If  fo,  we  (hall  ftlU  regret,  that  he 
has  undertaken  to  reprefent  to  the  world,  or  rather 
to  mifreprefent  the  fentiments  of  a  people,  which  he 
knows  fo  little  about. 

Could  any  thing  be  produced  from  the  writings  of 
an  individual,  which  might  feem  to  bear  hard  upon  the 
vilibility  of  the  P2edobaptift  churches,  this  alone  would 
not  prove  it  to  be  the  general  fentiment  of  the  denom- 
ination. Do  not  the  printed  works  of  the  Baptlft^, 
from  time  immemorial,  abundantly  fliow  that  they  hold 
no  fuch  fentiment  ? 

The  writer  of  thefe  fheets  thinks  it  incumbent  on 
himfelf,   in  this  place  to  declare,  that  as    far  as  he  has 
been  able  to  underftand  the  fentiments  of  his  own  de- 
nomination,  both  in  Europe  and  America,  they  never 
have  denied  that  Pxdobaptifts  were  vlfible  Chriftians ; 
that  a  number  of  them  united  together,  may  be  con- 
fidered  as  a  vifible   church  ;.    and  that  a  minifter  regu- 
larly placed  over  them,  may  be   a  vifible   minifter  of 
Chrlft.     Yet  they  confider  them,  Individually  and  unit- 
edly, in   an  error  with   refpedt  to  baptifm  :    that  fo  far 
as  their  vifibillty  depends  on  baptifm,  fo  far  it  Is  defect- 
ive.    We  think  we  can   fay,   in  the  fincerity  of   our 
hearts,  that  we  unfelgnedlylove  our  Pxdobaptill:  breth- 
ren,  who  appear  to  walk  in  the   fpirit  of  the  gofpel  ; 
and  are  determined  to  treat  them  as  Chriftians  ;  but 
as  Chriftians   whom  we  view  in  an  error,  as  exprefled 
above,  notwithftanding  the  hard  things  they  are  faying 
of  us.     If  Mr.  Worcefter  can  make  out,  that  our  deny- 
ing the  validity  of  their  baptifm,  is  denying  that  they 
make  any  "  part  of  the  true  church,  but  only  a  part  of 
Antlchrift,"  then  his  aftertion   may  be  true,  and  not 
otherwife.     The  fuppofition,  however,  is  too  abfurd  to 
be  admitted ;    for  It  would  bring  us  to  this  concluflon, 
that  baptifm  conftltuted  the  true  church  of  Chrift : 
m2 


[      1S8     ] 

then   Gonfequently  nothing  more  woald   be  necefTiry 
to  make  men  true  Chriiiians,  but  to  be  rightly  baptized.- 

f).  The  author  of  the  difcourf^s  has  charged  the 
jinabaptifts'^  with  *'  placing  fuch  Itrefs  upon  baptifm  in 
their  mode,  as  to  make  it  the  Iribject  on  which  to  dif- 
play  their  greatefi.  z^cal;  thus  making  people  beUeve,  in  too 
many  initances,  that  going  into  the  water  will  anfwer 
all  the  purpofes  of  their  prefent  comfort  and  of  their  • 
eternal  falvation."   (Note,  page  73.) 

Can  Mr.  Worcelter  lay  his  liand  upon  his  heart,  and 
folemnly  declare,-  that  he  believes  the  above  charge  to 
be  true  ?  If  he  believes  it,  he  believes  it  becaufe  he  has 
evidence  of  its  truth  ;  for  he  is  certainly  a  rational 
man,  and  no  rational  man  will  believe  without  evidence. 
If  he  has  evidence,  he  certainly  can  exhibit  it  to  the 
public.  .  And  that  we  may  be  either  proved  guilty,  or 
elfe  honourably  acquitted,  we  call  upon  him  as  a  gentle- 
man, as  a  man  of  honour,  as  a  ChriRian,  as  a  Chrillian 
minifter,  to  bring  forward  the  proof,  that  we  "  difplay 
our  greateft  zeal  in  making  people  believe,  that  going 
into  the  water  will  anfwer  all  the  purpofes  of  their  pref- 
ent comfort  ahd  of  their  future  falvation.". 

If  it  could  be  fairly  proved,  tUat  any  minifter  v/ho 
bears  the  name  of  a  Baptift,  had  fo  far  departed  from 
our  known  and  avowed  fentiments,  a^-  to  teach  in  the 
manner  ftated  in  the  charge,  he  would,  on  being  con- 
victed, be  immediately  rejected  from  our  connexion. 
It  is  notorious,  to  all  who  have  the  lead  knowledge  of 
our  fentiments,  that  we  baptize  , only  upon  z  profijjloti  of 
faith.  That  is,  iuch  perfons  only  as  in  a  judgment  of 
charity    are    thought    to    be   experimental    Chriftians. 

*  The  term  Anabaptlft,  has  by  common confent  been'  permitted  to  re- 
pofe  for  about  half  a  century.  During  this  period,  our  opponents  huve 
jrenprally.  been  content  to  call  us  Baptifts  .  but  Mr.  Worceftcr  thinks  it 
itot  fulficientiy  defcriptive  ;  for  he  fays,  '■  We  arc  all  BaptKb,"  and  hence 
concludes,  as  we  rc-baptize  (as  he  calls  it)  fuch  as  they  have  fprinkled  in 
infancy,  Anabaptlft  is  the  moft:  proper  term  of  diftinilion  (See  his  note, 
p.ige  66  )  A  gentleman  in  Counecfticuc,  who  has  lately  publilhed  a  large 
pamphlet  on  the  fubjedl  of  baptifm,  &c.  feems  not  content  witji  any 
names  they  have  hitherto  given  us.  He  chpofes  to  diftinguifh  us  by 
the  term  Dipping  Baptifts,  and  Duck-dipping  Baptifts,  and  i  know  not 
iiow  many  more  names.  After  all,  it  will  be  remembered,  that  hard, 
iiiittivs,  and  haru  aRgunnents,  are  very  (iiifereat  things. 

\ 

\ 

\ 


[      159     1 

Sh6ulcl  any  defire  to  be  baptized  upon  the  principle 
laid  down  in  the  charge,  it  would  in  our  opinion  prove 
them  totally  unqualified  for  the  ordinance.  The  pub- 
lic have  the  charge  before  them,  but  candour  requires 
that  they  Ihould  fufpend  their  opinion  until  proof  is 
exhibited  to  fubftamiate  it.  Mere  vague  report,  or  even 
lome  folitary  inftances  of  real  imprudence,  if  fucli  could 
be  found,  would  not  be  deemed  fuflicient  to  fix  a  cliarge 
generally  upon  the  whole  denomination.  Permit  us  to 
iUk,  Do  we  preach  more  frequently  upon  baptifm  in 
our  mode,  than  Pjedobaptifts  do  upon  the  fame  fubject 
in  theirs  ?  Do  we  write  and  publifli  more  books  in 
defence  of  our  fentiments  than  they  do  of  theirs  ?  Faifts 
fpeak  fo  plainly  to  the  contrary,  that  we  think  no  one 
will  alfert  it.  Do  we  "  place  iiich  a  ftrefs  upon  bap- 
tiim  in  our  mode,"  as  to  adminifter  the  ordinance  to 
any  who  cannot  give  a  fatisfactory  and  fcriptural  reafon 
of  their  hope  ?  We  certainly  do  not.  The  miniilers 
of  our  denomination,  perhaps  all  of  them,  have  frequent 
applications  for  baptifm  by  perfons  who  are  otherwife 
decent,  but  not  being  able  to  give  evidence  of  a  change 
of  heart;  they  are  denied.  How  then  docs  it  appear 
that  we  are  guilty  of  "making  people  believe,  m  too 
many  inftances,  that  going  into  the  water  will  anfwer 
all  the  purpolbs  of  their  prefent  comfort  and  eternal 
ialvation  r"  It  does  not  appear  at  all,  at  leaft  from  any 
thing  known  to  us.  On  the  whole,  the  charge  before 
us  has  an  afpedl  fo  perfe^Stly  refembling  what  the  fcrip- 
tures  call  jlatider^  that  if  it  had  come  from  almoH:  any 
other  quarter  befldes  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Worceftcr,  we 
i;M;uld  have  been  liable  to  have  miilaken  it  for  that 
deteflable  vice. 

7.  The  next  thing  which  we  fhall  notice,  is  a  charge 
againft  us  of  "  delufion  and  fuperftition,"  on  the  ac- 
count of  our  pretending  to  folLtv  Chriil  into  the  v>'ater. 
(See  note,  page  71.) 

Thia  charge  is  indeed  in  the  form  of  a  queftion ;  but 
it  is  evidently  intended  to  afTert  what  it  feems  to  in- 
quire after.  It  is  ftated  thus  :  "  Does  not  the  idea, 
then,  of  following  Chrift  into  the  water,  which  has 
unhappily  fo  povrerful  an  effe<5t  upon  many  minds,  par- 
take very  tnuch  of  the  nature  oidilufion  .xniXfupetjTaii^nP" 


[    140    3 

That  tHe  reader  may  better  underftand  Mr.  Wbrcef^ 
ter's  argument,  we  obferve,  that  the  obje6l  of  the  note 
from  which  the  above  is  extra^led,  is  to  explain  away 
the  evidence  ariling  in  favour  of  immerfionj  from  John's 
baptifm  ;  or  to  prove  that  John's  baptifm  was  not  Chrif- 
tian  baptifm  ;  therefore,  as  Chrift  was  baptized  by  him,, 
it  was  "  no  example  for  Chriftians." 

«  Chrift's  baptifm,"  faith  he,  "  was  defigned  regularly 
to  introduce  him  into  his  prieftly  office,  according  to 
the  law  of  Mofes,  under  which  he  commenced  his  min- 
iftry,  and  which  it  behoved  him  to  fulfil."  This  fam« 
fentiment  was  made  the  theme  of  a  fmall  pamphlet, 
publifhed  fome  years  ago  by  Meffrs.  Fifli  and  Crane, 
entitled,  "  The  baptifm  of  Jefus  Chrift  not  to  be  imi« 
tated  by  Chriftians."  We  have  noticed  obfervations 
to  the  fame  import  in  the  writings  of  feveral  other 
Psedobaptifts. 

The  author  before  us  continues  his  argument  thus  :: 
"  There  is  no  evidence  that  Chrift  was  buried  in  the 
water ;  and  even  if  he  were,  his  baptifm  was  of  an  im- 
port very  difterent  from  that  of  the  baptifm  which  he 
afterwards  inftituted  for  his  followers.  Are  we  to  gp 
into  the  water,  under  the  idea  of  following  Chrift — into- 
his  prieftly  office  .'^  Ought  we  to  call  this  delujton  and. 
fuperjiition,  or  ought  we  to  c:tll  it  the  height  of  impiety  /*" 

The  reader  will  here  obferve,  that  this  argument 
denies  that  Chrift's  baptifm  would  be  an  example  for- 
believers,  if  it  could  be  proved  beyond  a  doubt  that  he- 
were  immerfed  by  Jolin,  in  Jordan.  The  reafon  affign— 
ed,  is,  "  his  baptifm  v/as  of  a  difi'erent  import  from  that 
which  he  inftituted  for  hh  follower sJ^  So  it  feems  then, 
he  did  not  intend  his  followers  {\\ou\d  follow  him.  Was. 
not  every  other  a£t  of  Chrift's  life,  after- he  entered  on: 
his  public  work,  as  really  of  a  <«  difterent  import"  from 
the  work  afligned  us,  .is  his  baptifm  I  If  fOi  in  what 
then  are  we  to  follow  him  ? 

Our  Pxdobaptift  brethren  argue  their  mode  of  fprink- 
ling  from  the  fprinklings  under  the  law.  Thefe,  no 
doubt,  were  precifely  of  the  fame  import  of  infant  bap- 
tifm :  no  difiiculty  in  tracing  a  complete  refemblance* 
here,  though  the  fprinkling  were  only  of  blood  and? 
aflies  !    But  if  we  talk  o£  following  Chrift  into  the 


[     HI     ]    . 

water,  fo  as  to  have  our  baptlfm  refemble  his,  we  are 
chargeable  with  the  **  height  of  impiety  !" 

We  will  now  conlider  the  arguments  by  which  this 
charge  is  iupported.  It  is  faid  that  *'  Chrift's  baptifm 
was  deligned  regularly  to  introduce  him  into  his  prieiilv 
office,  according  to  the  law  of  Mofes."  Hence  this 
conclufion  is  drawn,  that  for  any  to  pretend  to  imitate 
him  in  his  baptifm,  mult  be  a  facriiegious  intrufion  t.pon 
his  prieftly  cfiice. 

But  the  fcntiment  ftated  above  labours  under  fevcral 
important  difficulties :  a  few  of  theni  will  be  briefly 
noticed. 

1.  By  the  law  of  Mofes,  no  Jl ranger  who  was  not  of 
the  feed  of  Aaron,  might  come  near  to  offer  incenfe  on 
pain  of  death.*  Every  thing  which  pertained  to  the 
I'ervice  of  the  tabernacle  was  committed  to  the  Levites, 
and  the  Jlraiigcr  that  lliculd  dare  to  come  nigli  was  to 
be  put  to  dmlh.\  By  the  fi:rangor  here,  we  are  not  to 
underftand  the  Gentiles,  but  any  of  the  other  tribes. 
As  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  felected  for  all  the  outward 
fervice  of  the  tabernacle,  fo  the  priefthood  was  exclu- 
lively  given  to  the  houfe  of  Aaron.  How  then,  we 
afk,  could' Jefus  Chrift  be  baptized,  to  introduce  him 
"  regularly  into  his  prieftly  office,  according  to  the  law 
of  Mofes,''  when  by  that  very  law  he  could  not  be  a 
prieft? 

2.  If  Jefus  had  been  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  of  the 
fiimily  of  Aaron,  his  baptifm  by  John  in  Jordan  could 
not  have  "  regularly  introduced  him  into  his  prieftly 
office,  according  to  the  law  of  Mofes ;"  for  it  did  not 
correipond  at  all  with  that  law,  refpecling  a  regular  in- 
du<£iiGn  into  the  prieft's  office.  L'he  form  of  induction, 
as  prefcribed  by  Mofes,  is  as  follows  : — Jnd  this  is  tht 
thing  that  -thou  JJjalt  do  unto  them^  ia  hal'ou'  theui^  to  min-^ 
ijltr  unto  me  in  the  priefis^  '{ffi^^-  J^'<-'ke  one  y^ung  bullocky 
and  two  rums  lijithout  bleimjh  ;  and  unleavened  breads  S(.c. 
And  Aaron  and  his  Jons  ihjujhalt  bring  unto  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation^  and  Jhuit  iajijIj  them  uith 
watery  &c.  After  this  they  were  to  be  adorned  with 
holy  garments,  the  bullock  and  the  rams  to   be  facri* 


C    1+3    3 

liced,  and  Aaron  and  his  fons  fprinkled  with  the  blood.. 
This  account  may  be  feen  at  large  in  the  twenty-ninth 
chapter  of  Exodus,  which  the  reader  is  delired  to  coin/- 
pare  with  the  baptifm  of  Jefus  by  John  in  Jordan ;  and 
then  let  him  aik  himfelf,  whether  he  can  poffibly  believe: 
that  the  latter  was  intended  "  regularly  to  introduce 
him  into  his  prieftly  office,  according  to  the  law  of 
Mofes."  Had  John  attempted  to  have  walhed  Jefus  at 
the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  with  a  view  to  indu<n:  him 
into  the  priefl's  office,  it  Js  probable  the  whole  nation 
would  have  rifen  up  againft  them  :  for  they  were  fo 
zealous  of  the  law  of  Mofes,  that  Mr.  Edv/ards  tells  us, 
"  they  would  wrangle  for  a  rite,  q.uarrel  for  a  faft,  and 
almoft  fight  for  a  new-moon." 

3.  Another  infuperable  difficulty,  which  attends  Mr.. 
Worcefter's  explanation  of  the  baptifm  of  Chrift,  is,  he 
ivas  not  made  a  priejl  after  the  lauu  of  a  carnal  command- 
ment y  but  after  the  power  of  an  endlefs  Ife.*  He  not  only^ 
pertained  to  another  trih,  of  which  no  num  gave  attendance 
at  the  aliar^  but  was  a  prieft  of  an  order  every  way  dif- 
tinct  from  the  order  of  Aaron,  or  any  thing  prefcribed 
by  the  law  of  Mofes.  By  the  oath  of  God,  Chrifl  w^su. 
made  a  prieft  after  the  order  of  Melchtzedec.\  Let  it  be. 
fairly  proved,  that  Melchizedec's  order  of  priefthood 
required  that  Jefus  fhould  be  baptized  in  Jordan,  and 
we  will  acknowledge  the  argument  to  be  in  point.  But 
even  to  admit  this/would  eftablilh  another  interefting 
idea,  i.  e.  that  Melchizedec  was  alfo  a  Baptift  ! 

From  the  preceding  remarks  it  appears  that  Mr. 
Worcefler's  aflertion,  that  "  the  baptifm  of  Chrift  was 
regularly  to  introduce  him  into  his  prieftly  office,"  is^ 
not  only  without  fcmidatlon,  but  we  conceive  utterly 
incr.pabie  of  proof.  If  the  law  of  Mofes  limited  the 
priefthood  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  *,  then  Jefus,  who  was 
of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  could  not  by  that  law  be  regular- 
ly  introduced  i«to  the  prieft's  office.  And  if  by  divine 
appointment  the  pcrfons  legally  qualified  to  be  induct- 
ed into  the  prieft's  office,  were  to  be  ivafhed  at  the 
door  of  the  Uibernacle — clothed  with  holy  garments — and. 
fprinkled  with  bloody  then  the  baptifm  of  Jefus  in  Jordan,, 

•  Kcb  vii.  1 6.  t  PfiLiicx,  4* 


t   r*s  ] 

is  it  differed  from  every  thing  prefcribed  by  the  law  of 
Mofes,  cannot  be  conlidered  as  anfwering  any  require- 
ment of  that  law.  And  if  Chrift  were  a  prieft  after 
the  order  of  Melchizedec,  then  the  law  of  Mofes  re- 
fpecling  the  Aaronic  priefthood,  had  nothing  to  do 
with  his  induction  into  his  pricAly  office.* 

Is  it  not  aftoniihing  that  inen  who  have  the  Bible  in 
their  hands,  can  reafon  at  fuch  ?.  rate  ;  and,  with  '«an 
afTurance  peculiar  to  themfelves,"  aiTert,  that  "  the  bap- 
tifm  of  Chrift  is  not  to  be  imitated  by  Chriftians  5"  but 
was  "  intended  to  introduce  him  into  his  prieftly  of- 
fice ',"  therefore  to  pretend  to  follow  him  into  the  water, 
muft  be  "  delulion  and  fuperftition,"  if  not  the  very 
"  height  of  impiety  ?  " 

What  eftetSt  Mr.  Worcefter*s  alarming  charge  of 
«  delufion  and  fuperftition,"  may  have  on  fuch  of  his 
brethren  as  ai-e  diflatisfied  with  their  infant  baptifm, 
and  who  have  almoft  determined  to  follow  Chriit  in  his 
holy  ordinances,  we  know  not.  It  is  pofllble  that  it 
may  deter  them  from  their  duty  a  little  lon,i;er,  but  we 
think  in  the  end,  they  muft  fee,  that  all  his  "  exhibi- 
tion of  fcripture  argument,"  amounts  to  nothing  more 
than  a  bold  afTertion.  If  there  be  any  law  of  Mofes,  that 
required  Jefus  to  be  baptized  in  Jordan,  we  fliall  thank 
Mr.  Worcefter  to  point  it  out  to  us  ;  for  we  cannot 
find  it  in   our  Bibles.     If  no  fuch   law  ever  exifted,  we 

•  Great  as  Abraham  the  patriarch  and  father  of  the  Jewlfli  church 
Vas,  the  priefthood  of  Chri/k  is  reckoned  after  the  ord^r  of  one  who 
was  faid  to  be  greater  than  him.  (Hsb.  vii.  7.)  As  Melchizedec 
broti)s.ht  forth  ireaJ  and  zvinc  to  Abraham,  when  he  was  returning  from 
the  fluughter  of  the  kings  and  bltfled  him  ;  fo  Chrift  inftituted  6read 
and  ivine  as  the  fymbols  by  which  his  deatk  fliould  be  commemorated 
\o  the  end  of  time.  This,  and  his  ol^ering  of  hi.-v.fcif  upon  the  tree  of 
the  crofs,  were  ads  which  particularly  diftinguiftied  the  prieftly  office 
of  Chrift.  .  We  have  no  account  of  his  ever  offi»:iating  as  a  prieft  in  the 
temple.  He  prefented  neither  blood  n«r  incenfe,  befides  his  own. 
For  if  be  xvere  on  ecrtb,  faid  the  apoftle,  he  Jbould  not  be  a  p;iejiy  feeing 
that  there  are  fr^efts  that  cffer  g'/ts  acccrding  fo  fte  /azv.f  T  hereforc 
Chrift,  as  the  great  Apoftle  and  High  Prieft  of  our  profcQion,  when 
he  had  made  this  one  offering  for  fin,  did  not  enter  into  the  holy  place 
blade  with  hands,  but  into  heaven  Itftlf,  by  hi»  own  blood,  and  notr 
afpciTS  in  the  prcfcncf  of  God  for  us. 

f  Heb.  Tiii.  4. 


C      14-4     ] 

muft  conclude  the  bjptUm  of  Chrifl  had  fome  other 
meaning. 

The  reader  will  comnara  the  obfervations  we  have 
made,  with  thofe  parts  of  the  {lacred  fcriptures  to  which 
they  refer  ;  particularly  to  Paul's  account  of  the  prieft- 
hood  of  Jefus  Chrili,  in  his  ep'ftle  to  th«  Hebrews.  If 
this  examination  be  made  by  an  honeiT:  mind,  aided  by  the 
enlightening  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  truth,  we  have 
no  doubt  but  all  his  fears  of  its  being  mere  "  delufion 
and  fuperftition,"  to  follow  the  blelTed  Saviour  in  his 
baptifmal  example,  will  inftantly  vanilh  away.  He  will 
with  grateful  and  adoring  views  of  the  condefceniion  of 
the  Son  of  God,  moft  cheerfully  follow  him  into  his 
Watery  grave,  and  be  buried  with  him  in  hapffm^  in  the 
full  and  hrm  hope  of  rilkig  to  ivalk  'with  him  i?i  nezvnefs 
oflife.  ,        _  ^ 

It  the  author  before  us  intended  to  fix  his  charge 
of  delufiOn^  fuperjTition ^  and,  i:v.piety  only  on  fach  as 
//7.^/?;/ by  following  Chriif:  into  the  water,  to  "follow 
him  in  his  prieftly  ofHce,"  it  will  implicate  none  of  the 
Baptifls  :  for  we  prefume  none  of  them  ever  believed 
him  to  be  baptized  for  that  purpoie.  None  but  P^edo- 
baptiils,  who  cautioufly  ihun  the  awful  delujton  of  "  imi- 
tating Chrift  in  his  baptifm,"  believe  any  fuch  thing. 
There  muft  be  a  greater  difplay  of  "  fcripture  argument" 
than  we  have  ever  yet  feen,  to  convince  us  th.t  Chrirt 
Was  immerfed  by  J  •>:-!  to  fulfil  the  law  of  Mofes. 

It  is  plain  to  be  feen,  how  much  Mr.  Worceiler  re- 
grets, that  theidea  of  "following  Chrifi:  into  the  wa- 
ter, which  he  fays  has  unhappily  fo  powerful  an  effect 
upon  many  minds,"  ihould  after  all  be  Itfc  in  the  hands 
cf  the  Baptifls,  to  be  ufed  as  a  "  fort  of  popular  charm," 
to  get  people  into  the  water.  That  it  has  a  very  "  pow- 
erful elFect"  upon  a  heaven-born  foul,  we  have  no 
doubt  j  but  we  never  before  heard  that  it  was  an  "un- 
happy "  efFecT:>  If  thofe  who  have  felt  its  influence  are 
the  proper  judges,  the  evidence  will  certainly  be  turned 
againft  him.  On  the  whole,  we  fee  nothing  which  bids 
fairer  to  come  under  the  denomination  of  "  delufion," 
than  to  be  left  to  believe,  thnt  Chrifl  did  not  intend  his 
haptifm  JJjould  be  imitated  by  his  folloiuers.  The  Jews 
boafted  that,  they  were  not  Chrift's,but  Mofes's  difciples  \ 


C     H5     3 

snd  fome  PxJobaptlfts  feem  to  exult  that  thev  are  not 
fo  deluded  as  to  follow  hiin  into  the  water,  to  imitate 
his  baptifmul  examj-'le.  We  envy  not  their  happinefs, 
but  we  freely  confei?,  we  afpire  after  the  fcliciry  of 
thofe  of  whom  it  will  one  day  be  faid,  Thefe  are  they 
which  FOLLOW  THE  Lamb  ivhitherfoevcr  he  goeth,^ 

There  are  many  other  things  in  the  difcourfes  which 
have  been  the  fubjc<5t  of  thele  animadverfions,  which 
we  confider  as  highly  reprehenlible,  but  our  Hmits  for- 
bid that  we  fliould  enlarge.  A  few  things,  which  re- 
fpe£l  the  mode  of  baptifm,  will  probably  be  noticed 
in  our  next  fe<5lion.  Mr.  Edwards  propofed  a  fliort 
method  with  the  Baptifts,  but  Mr.  Worceiler  has  taken 
a  ftill  (horter ;  for  while  the  former  attempted  to  run 
down  one  or  two  of  their  main  arguments,  the  latter 
has  only  to  declare  that  they  do  not  "  touch  the  point," 
and  the  bufinefs  is  done.  His  words  are,  "  The  argu- 
ments moft  in  ufe  among  the  Antipiedobaptiits,  and  of 
the  greateft  efficacy,  as  a  fort  of  popular  charm,  do  not 
touch  the  points  of  real  difference  between  us  and 
them."  (Note,  page  58.)  If  the  "real  points  of  differ- 
ence have  not  been  touched,"  in  the  preceding  fheets, 
we  fliall  only  have  to  regret  our  inability  to  diicern 
them.  Our  objed  has  been  to  «  touch  "  them  fo  as  to 
be  felt,  yet  in  a  refpe(Slful  candid  manner ;  whether  we 
have  failed  in  the  attempt  an  impartial  public  will  jud'^e. 
Confcious  of  having  directed  our  arguments  to  the  "  real 
points  of  difference,"  it  would  give  us  litile  pain  (hould 
any  gentleman  modejlly  declare  them  nothing  more  thati 
«  a  popular  charm."  We  pray  God  to  fucceed  them, 
for  the  removal  of  real  aiffcrences  between  good  men. 


SECTION     VII. 

Striclttres  on  the  Obfervations  of  tic   Rev.  Mr.  Woi'cejl-er, 
Dr.  Ofgcod,  and  others ^  upon  the  MODE  of  Baptfn. 

IT  is  extremely  difficult  to  write  or  fpeak  fa 
as  not  to  be  cenfured  by  thofe  who  are  difpoled  to  cavil. 
«« If  your  fentiments  are  cordiftent,"  fay  our  opponents 

•  Rev.  xiv.  4. 
N 


[     1^6     3 

«  why  do  you  talk  about  the  mode  of  baptlfm  ?  Immer- 
iion  and  baptifni  muft  be  fyuonymoLis  terms  with  you." 
They  are  indeed  fo  with  us,  and  when  we  talk  or  write 
to  thofe  of  our  own  denomination,  we  life  them  in  this 
fenfe.  But,  fays  another,  "  the  difpute  is  not  about 
baptifm  itfelf,  but  only  about  a  mere  mode  of  baptifm." 
Very  well  •,  let  it  be  mode,  if  we  can  only  underftand 
one  another.  We  fliall  therefore  ufe  the  term  nwdey 
not  meaning  by  it  to  concede  that  there  are  diffei*ent 
modes  equally  valid,  but  as  being  beft  adapted  to  explain 
the  di^erent  views  of  the  two  dencmiuaticns.  **  The 
queftion,"  faith  Mr.  Worcefter,  "  properly  between  us, 
is  not  this,  Whether  any  were  baptized  in  the  days  of 
Chrift  and  his  apodlcs  by  inimerfion  or  dipping  ;  but  it 
is  precifely  this,  Whether  immerfion  or  dipping  be  the 
only  valid  mode  of  bapiifm."  (Note,  page  73.) 

If  Mr.  Worcefter  himfolf  can  "  touch  the  points  of 
real  difference  between  us  and  them,"  and  this  is  an 
accurate  ftatement  of  one  of  them,  it  will  narrow  the 
ground  of  controverfy  confidcrably.  By  this  ftatement 
it  will  be  {^en^  that  if  it  be  not  a  qiief^ion  between  us 
and  them,  "  whether  fome  were  baptized  in  the  days 
of  Chrift  and  h's  apoftles  by  immerlion,"  then  it  mufi: 
be  a  conceded  point  thcit  there  v^ere  fome  immerfed  at 
that  period.  And  if  it  be  not  a  queftion,  whether  im- 
merfion  or  dipping  be  a  valid  mode  of  baptifm,  but 
whether  it  be  the  '« only  valid  mode,'*  then  immerfion 
is  unqneftionably  a  valid  mode.  The  "  point  of  differ- 
ence" is  here  to  nicely  ^«  touched,"  as  to  leave  our 
practice  on  the  firm  balls  of  apoilolic  authority.  Let 
the  auiho'  before  us  prove  fprinkling  to  be  equally 
valid,  and  tliere  will  be  no  queftion  about  that :  it  will 
then  be  acknowledged  by  us  as  well  as  them,  that  both 
are  valid. 

That  immerfion  is  nn  apodolic  valid  mode,  is  as  capa- 
ble of  oroof  as  any  other  event  placed  at  that  diffance. 
But  it  may  be  aiked,  How  is  it  to  be  proved  t  We 
anfwer,  1(1:,  from  a  fair  and  candid  conflrudtion  of 
fcrlpture  teilimony  refj-.ecting  the  ordinance  j  2d,  from 
the  mod  authentic  eccleliiffical  hiftory  ;  and  3d,  we 
alio  prove  it  from  the  fuU  and  fair  concellior.s  of  mr.ny 


C     147     ] 

of  the  moft  learned  and  pious  Paidobaptifts  tliem- 
felves.* 

Afier  furnillnng  all  tliis  kind  of  proof,  in  the  mofl 
SHiiple  and  plenary  manner,  our  opponents  infiil:  that 
we  mull:  alio  difpnve  their  niod'.^  We  can  fee  no  pro- 
priety in  fuch  a  demand,  nor  ih.all  we  undertake  it,  any 
further  than  the  proving  our  own  will  difprove  theirs. 
If  they  pra^life  fprinkling  for  baptifoi,  they  certainly 
ought  to  exhibit  proof  of  its  validity. 

Mr.  Worcefter  charges  the  author  of  the  Seven  Ser- 
mons on  the  llibj  eels  and  mode  of  baptifm,  that  "lie 
tijlrts  much  and  proves  little."  We  think  that  ^Oi\-\Q  of 
his  own  aflertions  would  have  carried  quite  as  much 
convijSlion,  if  they  had  been  fupported  by  a  little  more 
proof.  His  lifth  inference  labours  for  the  want  of  proof. 
It  is  ftated  as  follows  :  "  It  may  be  inferred  from  our 
fubjc^,  that  fprinkling  or  alFufion  is  a  valid  ai:d  fcrip- 
tiiral  mode  of  baptifm."  (page  64".)  But  (rom  what  is 
this  inference  drawn  ?  Not  from  any  dire«:t  fcripiure 
teftimony,  for  the  fcriptures  £re  wholly  <<  lilent.'-j-  Not 
from  any  authentic  hillory,  "  becaufe  there  is  notliing 
diretSlly  on  the  fubje^t,  cither  for  or  again!!:  inf.int  bap- 
tifm, in  the  fragments  which  have  co.i.ii  t.ic?r;n  to  w-  -x 
the  wntings  of  the  firft  century."J  It  muft  tlieicfore 
reft  on  the  follov/ing  circumftances :  That  a  church  vva>i 
conftituted  in  the  family  of  Abraham  ;  that  circumcilion 
was  a  feal  or  token  of  memberfhip  in  that  church  ; 
that  the  fame  church  has  been  continued  under  the 
gofpel  difpenfation,  and  for  ages  has  been  exclulively 
among  the  Pjedobaptifts  ;  that  God  hrs  owned  tliem  as 
his  church ;  and  they  have  -always  pra(^^iied  fprinkling 
or  afFufion  ;  therefore,  "  fprinkling  or  atFnlion  is  a  valid 
(ifid  fcr'iptwal  mode  of  baptifm"  If  the  inference  has 
any  thing  better  than  the  above  to  fupport  it,  we  very 
much  rniftake.  As  a  fpecimen  of  I\Ir.  Wcrctftcr's  rea- 
fbning  in  fupport  of  the  inference^  the  reader  will  take 
the  following  :  "  But  if  there  have  been,  in  every  peri- 
od, a  true  church  in  the  world  j  then  there  have  been, 
in  every  period,  eflentially  zoxxq.€l  views  of  the  facra- 

•  Sec  Part  II.  Se<5l.  iv.  and  v. 
I  Mr.  P.  Edwards.  \  Mr.  Worcefter,  note,  psfe  6», 


[     U8     ] 

ments  and  feals  of  the  church.  In  particular,  fmce  rhe 
alteration  of  the  firfi:  feal,  there  mufl:  have  been  effen- 
tially  correct  views  of  baptlfm  :  for  it  were  no  iefs 
ablurd  in  itfelf,  than  incompatible  with  the  purpofes 
and  promifes  of  God,  to  fuppofe  that  at  any  period  a 
true  church  has  exifted  without  efTentially  correct  views 
cf  the  hrft  facrament  and  feal" 

"  It  is,  however,  (continues  the  author)  a  well  fup- 
ported  fae"t,  tliat  in  the  fir  ft  ages  of  Chriftianity,  and 
for  about  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  years,  baptifm  by 
fprinkling  or  affufion  was  univerfally  allowed  to  be 
fcripturnl  and  valid.  Even  thofe  who  in  ordinary  cafes 
baptized  by  immerfioUi  did  not  deny,  but  admitted,  the 
■validity  of  bapthm  by  fprinkling  or  aitufion."   (page 

The  reader  will   here  notice  another  full  and  fair 
conceilion — that  the  manner  of  baptizing  was  in  crdi^ 
nary  cafes  by  immersion.     This   is  an  undoubted  fa£l : 
but  that  fprinkling,  during   the  apoftolic  age,  and  for 
two  centuries  after,  was  allowed  to   be  fcriptural,  or, 
properly  fpeaking,  vo.Iid^  we   iliall  not  believe  without 
proof.     Eufebius,  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
j^ives  U5  the  follov/ing  account  of  Novotus  :    "  He  fell 
into  a  grievous  diftemper,  and  it  being  fuppofed  that 
he  would  die  immediately,  he  received  baptifm  (being 
hejprinklcd  with  w^ater)   on  the  bed  whereon  he  lay,  if 
that  can  be  called  baptifm."*     If  fprinkling  w^ere  con- 
ildered  equally  valid   as   immerlion,  why    fliould  this 
ancient   father  make  the  above  exception  ?    If  equally 
valid,  why  fliould  the  Neoc.tfirian  Council  declare  fuch 
perfons  incapable  of  being  admitted  to  the  degree  of 
prelhyters  in  the  church  ?  f     We  have  never  yet  feen 
any  fair  proof  that  Iprinkling  was  in  any  inftance  ad- 
mitted in  the  apoftolic  age.     But  after  infpiration  had 
ceafed,   and   men  began  to  mix  their  own  inventions 
with  the  pure  doctrine  of  Chrift,  and   had   concluded 
that  baptifm  was  eiTential  to  falvation,  cafes  frequently 
occurred  which  they  called  cafes  of  necejfity  ;   that   is, 
v/here  perfons  were  tick  and  in  danger  of  dying.    Thele 
were,   we  acknowledge,  in  fome  inftances  fprinkled  r 

*  Sec  Part  II.  p.ge  Oj^.  f  Dr.  Gate,  page  i9<. 


i:  1+9  ] 

but  this  rprinkling  was  almoft  as  different  from  that 
which  is  now  in  ufe  as  immerfion  itfelf.  It  was  not  a 
few  drops  of  water  put  on  the  face  only,  but  the  per- 
fons  were  fprinkled  from  head  to  foot.*  It  was  an 
entire  wetting,  like  what  is  faid  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
who  was  wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven.  This  wetting 
of  the  perfon  all  over  by  fprinlding,  though  it  were  not 
an  immerfion,  it  approximated  to  it  ;  and  even  this  was 
admitted  only  in  cafes  of  imperious  necefHty.  Dr.  Cave 
thus  remarks  upon  it  :  "  This  was  accounted  a  lefs 
f'Aemn  and  perfeB  kind  of  baptifm,  partly  becaufe  it  was 
done  7iQt  by  immevfion^  but  hy  fprifihl'uig ;  pirtly  becaufe 
perfons  were  fuppofed  at  fuch  a  time  to  defire  it,  chiefly 
out  of  fear  of  death."f  The  Do(ri:or  further  adds,  «  The 
place  where  this  folemn  action  was  performed,  was  at 
firft  unlimited.  Any  place  where  there  was  water,  as 
Juftin  Martyr  tell  us,  in  ponds  and  lakes  ;  at  fprings  or 
rivers^  as  Tertullian  fpeaks  Afterwards  they  had  their 
{hnptijleria)  fonts  built,  at  lirft  near  the  church,  then  in 
the  church-porch,  to  reprefent  baptifm  as  being  the 
entrance  into  the  myftical  church.":{:  Thefe,  he  in- 
forms us,  were  ufually  very  large  and  capacious,  fo 
*<  that  they  might  comport  with  the  general  cuftoms  of 
thofe  times,  of  perfons  baptized  being  immcrfed  or  put 
under  water." 

Two  things  are  clearly  demonflrated  by  the  above 
quotations.  Firfi,  That  immEvfiony  during  the  firft 
centuries,  was  conlldored  as  the  only  fcriptural  bap- 
tifm. Second,  That  fprinhlin^  was  admitted  only  in 
cafes  of  fuppofed  necefljty,  and  tiien  coniidered  as  a 
kind  of  imperfeci  baptiiln.  This  proves  that  it  was  a 
mere  human  invention,  a  departure  from  the  infiituted 
mode ;  for  if  it  had  been  fan(Slioned  by  apoftolic  au- 
thority, it  muft  have  been  coniidered  equally  valid  as 
immerlion.  In  fact,  there  can  be  no  fair  reafon  affigncd 
why  they  fliould  immerfe  in  ordinary  cafes,  or  even  at 
all,  had  they  viewed  fprinkling  equally  valid. 

"  It  is,  however,  a  well  fupported  fadt,"  f  lith  Mr. 
Worcefter,  <«  that  in  the  firft  ages  of  Chriflianity,  and 

*  See  Dr.  Wltfixis  on  the  Covenants,  Vol.  HI. 
t  Priui.  Chriftianity,  page  '96.  \  Ibid,  page  198,  ;95» 

N  2 


[      150     ] 

for  about  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  years,  baptifm  hf 
iprinkling  or  aftufion  was  univerfally  allowed  to  be 
fcriptural  and  valid."  By  whom  is  this  "  fad  fupport- 
ed  ?"  Certainly  not  by  Eufebius  and  Socrates  5*  not  by 
Cave.f  Wall.l  MoQieim,§  nor  RobinA^n-H  Thefe  all 
fupport  exactly  the  contrary  j  that  imrnerlion  was  the 
divinely  appointed  mode,  and  that  fprinkling,  for  the 
fiike  of  convenience  or  neceffity,  without  divine  author- 
ity, was  adopted  in  its  room.  In  proof  of  this,  we  add 
the  following:  «  There  has,"  fays  Dr.  Wall,  «no  nov- 
elty or  alteration,  that  I  know  of,  in  point  of  baptifm, 
been  broug;ht  into  our  church,  but  in  the  -zu^^'Or  manner 
of  adniiniftering  it.     The  way  that  is  now'  ordinarily 

Ufed,    V/E    CANNOT    DENY    TO    HAVE    BEEN    A    NCVF'LTY, 

brought  into  the  church  by  thofe  who  learned  it  in 
Germany  or  at  Geneva. "5f  This  honeft  confeffion, 
with  what  we  have  quoted  from  Eufebius  and  Cave, 
nriilitates  exceedingly  with  Mr.  Worceifer's  **  well  fup- 
ported  faft/"'  of  the  fcriptural  validity  of  fprinkling. 

After  fpending  a  number  of  pages,  in  attempting  to 
prove  the  validity  of  fprinkling  from  the  practice  of 
the  Pa^dobarffift  churches,  without  producing  the  leafb 
jcriptitre  autbcrity^  Mr.  Worcefter  adds,  "  The  fair  and 
invincible  conclufion  then  is,  that  fprinkling  or  affufion, 
the  mode  of  baptifm  praclifed  in  tbefe  churches,  is 
fcriptural  and  valid."  On  what  does  this  invincible  con- 
cluiion  reft  t  Why  truly,  on  this,  That  the  Psedobap- 
tifts,  who  are  God's  true  church  in  an  excluiive  fenfe, 
have  for  centuries  praiTtlfed  fprinkling  in  -the  room  of 
immerfion,  therefore  it  muft  be  '*  fcriptural  and  valid." 
The  author  does  not  pretend  to  have  proved  it  from 
the  Bible,  but  informs  us  "  there  is  nothing  in  the 
fcriptures  againft  it,  but  much,  as  might  be  fhewn  did 
time  permit,  in  favour  of  it."  (page  69  )  Yv^'hat  a  pity 
it  is  that  he  had  not  fpared  fome  of  his  time  fpent  in 
invectives  againil  the  Baptifts,  and  proved  this  important 
point.  If  it  had  been  of  no  fervice  to  us,  it  might  have 
kelped  fome  of  his  wavering  brethren,  who  we  conceive 

*  Eccl   Hlft.  t  Prim.  Chrif.  \  Hifl.  Infant  Bap. 

§  Ecci.  Hift.  II   Hi(V.  Bap.  and  Eccl.  Refcarche*. 

\  Defence  of  Hiil.  Infaat  Bap.  p.  t^t. 


L     151     ] 

jnuft  be  more  perplexed  than  ever,  from  the  confufed 
contradi<ftory  account  he  has  given  of  the  ordinance. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  conceded,  not  only  implicitly,  but 
in  direct  terms,  that  immerfion  was  the  ancient  ordinary 
mode  :  yea,  that  it  was  pracliftd  in  the  days  of  Chrift 
and  his  apoftles  ;  and  after  all  dented  that  there  is  any- 
proof  of  it.  We  will  place  his  obfer  vat  ions  before  the 
reader,  and  leave  him  to  make  his  own  comments. 

Speaking  of  baptifm  in  the  *^  firft  ages  of  Chriftianl- 
ty,"  he  fays,  "  Even  thofe  who  in  ordinary  cafes  baptized 
by  iniinerfiony  did  not  deny,  but  admitted  the  validity  of 
baptifm  by  fprinkling  or  aduiion."  (p^ge"  64-,  Qo.) 
Again,  "ThequelHon  properly  between  us  is  /;5/ this, 
Whethr  ANT  were  baptized  in  the  days  of  Christ 

AND    HIS    APOSTLES    BY    IMMERSION     OR    DIPPING  J     but 

it  is  precifely  this,  Whether  immerfion  or  dipping 
be  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptifm  ^  (Note,  page  73.) 
He  quotes  the  following  from  Dr.  Wall  ;  "The 
ancient  Chriilians,  wlen  they  ivere  baptized  by  imm^r- 
siOK,  were  all  baptized  naked,  &c."  "  It  is  a  clear  cafe," 
fays  the  author,  "that  ivb^'n  they  luere  baptized  by  im- 
mersion, they  were  immerfed  three  tinaes,  8:c."  (Note 
page  74.)  Thele  are  fome  of  the  concefiions  in  the 
diicourfes  before  us.  The  following  appear  to  us  like 
contradidions.  "  We  have  (faith  the  author)  no  evi- 
dence in  the  fcriptures,  that  in  the  days  of  Chriif  and 
his  apoiVies,  atiy  pevfon  luas  baptized  by  immersion."  (page 
69.)  *'  Could  it  even  be  proved,  as  however  it  cannot 
be,  thaty^w^  ivere  baptized  in  the  apojlles'  days  by  immer- 
sion, it  would  avail  nothing  ag:u-,ift  our  practice,  unlcfs 
It  could  be  proved  that  none  were  baptized  in  any  other 
way."  (Note,  page  73.) 

It  is  thought  that  Mr.  Worcefter  has  fallen  into  the 
fame  inconliltencies  in  defending  his  own  pradlice  as  in 
oppofing  ours.  The  following  is  a  fpecimen  :  "  As 
there  was  (faith  he)  no  difpute  about  baptifm  in  the 
hrft  ages  of  Chriilianity,  it  ihould  not  be  expelled  that 
much  would  be  found  particularly  on  the  fubjeCt,  in 
the  writings  of  thofe  ages.  But  becaufe  there  is  no- 
thing directly  on  the  subject  either  for  or 
AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM,  in  thc  fragments  which  have 
come  down  to  us  of  the  writings  of  the  firft  century, 


[     152     ] 

the  Antiptedobaptiftf5,  with  an  aiTlirsnce  peculiar  to  them- 
felves,  have  undertaken  to  njprtf  not  to  proves  that 
during  the  firfl:  century,  infant  baptifm  was  not  pra<EVifed 
in  the  church."  (Note,  page  60.)  After  thus  acknowl- 
edging that  in  the  writings  of  the  firft  century  there  is 
nothing  directly  «  either  for  or  againil:  infant  baptifm," 
he  goes  on  to  fay,  that  "  in  the  writings  of  Clemanus  Ro- 
manusy  and  Hermes  Paftor,  both  cotemporaries  with  the 
apoftles,  paffages  are  extant,  which  by  fair  implication^ 
prove  the  practice  of  infant  baptifm  in   their  day: 


»>* 


*  There  Is  an  Ingenious  obfcurlty  In  the  manner  of  Mr.  Worceftcr's 
quoting  thefe  ancient  writers.  Had  we  no  other  means  of  ufcertain- 
Ing  the  time  when  they  lived  and  wrote,  but  the  ftatemcnt  in  the  note 
before  us,  it  would  not  be  very  eafy  to  detenaiue  in  what  century  they 
lived.  An  incautious  reader  might  fuppofc  thst  they  all  lived  in  or  near 
the  hrft  century  ;  whereas  the  Ha^  is,  they  extend  through  four  or  five, 
"  TertuUian,"  lays  the  author  beiore  \js,  '*  was  uLout  ii  years  old  when 
Polycarp  died  "  But  how  are  we  to  know  when  Polycarp  died  > 
Again,  "  Cyprian,  bifhop  of  Carthage,  who  fujfered  martvrdom  for  the 
Chiriftian  faith,  only  about  five  years  from  the  death  of  Oj  igen  "  Ah, 
indeed,  it  is  prefumed  th..t  every  f.ne  knows  when  Origendied  !  But 
whit  of  Cypiian  ?  Why,  iie  *•  v\ as  prelident  of  a  council, which  coa- 
fifted  of  fixty-fix  bifhops  or  partes  of  churches,  and  whi  h  ucliv-'red  an 
unanimous  opinion  that  che  baptifm  of  infants  was  not  to  he  deferred 
(as  fonie  had  fuj  poied  it  fhould  be)  until  the  eighth  day,  but  might  be 
given  them  at  any  time  before  "  But  wfien  was  this  council  held  ? 
Why,  fome  time  in  the  Ufe  of  Cyprian,  and  h«  fuffcred  martyrdom  on- 
ly five  years  after  th.  death  of  Origen.  ,  Now  who  could  tell  by  all 
this  whether  this  council  was  held  in  the  firft,  fecond  or  third  century  ? 
But  what  does  the  refult  cf  it  prove,  v/ith  refpedt  to  infant  baptifm's 
being  an  apoftolic  pra(R:ice  ?  Noching  at  all,  we  conceive,  but  much  to 
the  contrary.  The  fa6t  is,  this  council  was  in  the  year  256.  The 
occafion  was,  a  country  bifliop  by  the  name  of  Fidus  could  not  deter- 
mine by  his  Bible,  nor  by  aii^  ufage  of  the  church,  whether  new  born 
infants  might  be  baptized,  or  whether  it  niuft  be  deferred  until  the 
eighth  day.  He  applied  to  Cyprian,  hut  he  had  no  rule  by  which  to 
determine  the  oueftion,  until  it  was  fettled  by  the  opinion  of  the  above 
council.  If  Jt  had  been  the  conftant  pradlice  of  the  whole  Chriftian 
church  from  the  firil  iniHiution  of  baptifm,  which  was  now  more  than 
aoo  years,  to  baptize  infants,  would  fuch  an  important  circumflancc 
have  been  unnoticed  all  this  time  ?   It  is  a'ofolutely  incredible. 

To  the  above  account  the  author  adds,  "  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Bafil, 
Ambroie,  Chryfoflome,  and  Jerome,  all  of  whom  flourifhed  within 
about  A  hundred  years  of  Origen  and  Cyprian,  are  all  explicit  on  the 
fubjecl  ;  explain  the  defign  of  infant  baptifm,  &c."  (Note,  page  60.) 
The  abcve  mentioued  all  lived  in  the  fourth  century,  and  one  or  more 
of  them  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth.  As  thefe  are  faid  to  be  '*  explicit 
oa  the  fubje(5l,  and  to  explain  the  (''■Jiyn  of  infant  baptifm  ;"  we  think 
it  would  grat-fy  our  readers,  to  knov/  what  the  ^ep^n  of  it  was.  We 
will  give  tlicnr.  the  op:n:on  of  the  firll  of  them.     Gregory,  as  dcli\-ered 


[     i53     ] 

What  a  happy  knack  fome  men  have  st  proving  their 
point.  When  all  other  evidence  fciils,  they  can  prove 
it  completely  by  implication  -,  and  even  from  writings 
too,  which  fay  "  nothing  direclly  on  the  fubject,  either 
for  or  againft  it."  We  regret  exceedingly,  however, 
that  thofe  "paflages"  which  prove  infant  baptifm  by 
fair  implication,  had  not  been  fet  down,  fo  that  we  might 
have  judged  of  the  evidence  for  ourfelves.  Or  had  the 
author  only  favoured  us  with  corredt  references  to  the 
book  and  page,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  fome  might 
have  taken  the  liberty  to  have  examined  the  originals 
for  themfelves.  However,  it  is  bed  to  proceed  cau- 
tioufly  :  there  might  be  fome  danger  apprehended  from 
this  i'for  "  of  late  (fays  he)  one  can  hardly  meet  with 
an  Atttipxdobaptift,  who  is  not  prepared  to  talk  fo 
fluently  and  learnedly  of  the  meaning  of  Greek  and 
Latin  words,  as  alm.oft  to  amaze  one  !  !  "  Kud  fucli 
references  been  made,  it  is  poffible  that  fome  of  this 
evidence  by  implication  mijjht  have  been  difputed. 

Several  other  writers  of  the  two  rirft  centuries  are 
mentioned ;  but  none  of  them  as  giving  explicit  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  infant  baptifm,  till  we  come  to  Ori- 
gen,  towards  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  We  are 
willing  that  the  teltimony  of  Origen^  fl^iould  have  its 
proper  weight;  but  we  are  perfuaded,  that*fuch  as 
know  his  true  character,  as  it  ftands  on  tl?e  page  of 
hiftory,  will  attach  very  little  confidence  to  what  he  has 
faid  on  this  point.  The  following  is  quoted  from  him 
by  Dr.  Molheim :  "  The  fcrlptures  are  of  Uttle  ufe  to 
thofe  who  underfland  them  as  they  are  v/ritten."     To 

in  his  fortieth  Oration  in  tiie  year  38 r.  "But,  fay  fome,  what  i$ 
your  opinion  of  infants,  who  are  not  capable  of  judging  cither  of  the 
gtace  of  baptifm,  or  of  the  ^.7;//^/^^<f  fuflained  by  the  want  of  it  ;  fliail 
we  baptize  them  too  ?  By  all  niean=^,  //  there  be  any  apparent  danger. 
for  it  were  better  tliat  they  were  fanci'fed  ivithcut  their  kno^vlttg  if, 
than  that  they  fhould  die  without  being  fealed  and  initiated.  ^  As  for 
©thers,  I  give  my  opinion,  that  when  they  arc  three  years  of  age,  or 
thereabouts  (for  then  they  are  able  to  hear  and  anfwer  fome  of  the 
myftical  words,  and  although  they  do  not  fully  underrtand,  they  may  re- 
ceive impreffions)  they  may  he  fandified  both  foul  and  body  by  the 
great  myftery  of  initiation."  (Greg  Naz.  Orat.  xL  in  Robinfon.) 
What  wonderful  children,  to  underiland  fuch  profound  myfteries  at  three 
years  old!  And  what  an  amazing  cffed  this  huuntf^  of  initiation  had, 
CO  fandify  chcm  throughout  in  foul  and  body. 


C      154     2 

which  the  Do<rtor  adds  this  obfervation  :  "  He  could  not 
find  in  the  Bible  the  opinions  he  had  adopted,  as  long 
as  he  interpreted  that  facrcd  book  according  to  its  literal 
fenfe."*  It  is  of  little  confequence  in  this  difpute,  to 
know  that  men  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  ap- 
proved and  pradtifed  infant  baptifm.  Nor  do  we  con- 
ceive that  the  "  impregnable  teftimony  "  of  Pelagius, 
(a  man  condemned  by  all  the  ancient  fathers  as  a  her- 
etic)  adds  any   ftrength  to  Mr.  Worcefter's  argument. 

Another  argument  in  favour  of  fprinkling,  and  againft 
immerfion,  which  makes  a  coniiderable  figure  in  thefe 
difcourfes,  and  in  the  writings  of  fome  others,  is,  that 
fprinkling  is  ihe  mojl  eafy  and  convenient  mode,  "  Of  the 
feveral  accounts  of  baptifms  recorded  in  the  fcriptures, 
I  think  (fays  Mr.  Worcefter)  it  will  appear  that  thofe 
baptifms  Avere  performed  in  the  mofi:  eafy  and  convenient 
mode."  (page  70.)  He  fuppofes  that  when  John's  can- 
didates were  "  aiTembled  upon  the  banks  of  the  Jordan, 
the  mofl  cofivenient  way  would  be  for  them  to  go  down 
to  the  brink  of  the  water,  and  there  be  baptized  by 
aifulion  or  fprinkling."  <«  On  the  day  oi  pentecofty  (he 
adds)  when  three  thoufands  were  baptized  in  a  very 
fhort  time ;  they  were  at  the  temple  in  the  mid  fir  of 
Jerufalem,  where  the  moft  convenient,  if  not  the  only 
tl-ay,  would  be  to  have  water  brought  in  a  bafon,  or 
fome  othei-^S^eflel,  and  baptize  them  in  the  fame  way.'*' 
(page  72.)  It  would  feem,  by  thefe  obfervations,  that 
the  command  of  God  muffc  yield  to  our  convcniency. 
Wiiat  exalted  ideas  fuch  men  muft  have  of  the  authority 
of  God  in  his  pofitive  inftitutions,  to  fuppofe  we  are  to 
accommodate  them  to  our  own  conveniency  !  Had  good 
old  Abraham,  at  the  age  of  ninety-nine,  confulted  his 
conveniency,  would  he  not  probably  have  preferred  cut- 
ting the  end  of  his  little  finger,  to  the  part  appointed 
by  the  inftitution  of  circumcifion  } 

We  have  no  right  nor  wifn  to  fay,  that  our  brethren 
fliall  not  confult  their  convenience  in  the  admihiftratlon 
of  the  ordinance  ;  but  for  ourfelves,  we  hope  never  to 
think  it  inconvenient  to  obey  the  commands  of  Chrifl, 
and  follow  the  example  of  him  who  thought  it  no  incon-* 

*  Mofhelm,  Vol.  I,  page  270,  note. 


C     153     1 

vemency  to  travel  on  foot  from  Galilee  to  Jordan,  to  be 
immerfed  by  John  in  that  river. 

Sprinkling  is  alfo  faid  to  have  another  great  advan- 
tage over  immerfion  :  It  is  not  only  more  convenient, 
but  "  more  compatible  with  every  idea  of  propriety  and 
DECENCY."  (page  73.) 

Dr.  Ofgood  *  dilates  largely  on  the  decency  of  their 
pra<flice,  and  the  indecency  of  ours.     "  To  me,  (faith 
he)  indeed,  this  (fprinkling)  appears  the  only  mode  in 
which   the   ordinance   can   be   adminiiicred    with  that 
•rder,  ckcency^'  &c.     He  adds,  "  Their  leaving  the  place 
of. wordnpfjlri'nmiffg  away  in  the  open  air  to  fome  pond 
or  river,  and  in  all  feafons  and  climates,  changing  their 
apparel  in  order  to  their  being  totally  immerl'ed  in  the 
water,  out  of  which  tliey  come  drenched  and  Jhiverin^;' 
&c.   (page  8.)     He  concluJcs,  however,  that  "  baptiVm 
by   immerfion   might  not,  perhaps,  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago,  be  offensive  in  Judea ;  nor  can  we  fay  that 
it  would  difguft  the  uncultivated  and  unclothed  inhab- 
itants of  South  Africa,  even  now  ;  but  it  is  certain,  that 
the  culiom  of  plunging  mixed  multitudes  of  men  and 
women,  either  in  thin  veftments  or  in  their  ufual  drefs, 
is  deemed  indecorous  by   moft  people  accuftomed  to 
poliihed  manners."  (page  14.)     Eighteen  centuries  ago, 
it  feems,  then,  it  might  not  have  been  off^nfive  for  Jeiiis 
and  his  difciples  to  be  immerfed,  but  it  is  now  abfolutely 
"  indecorous"  to  follow  their  example  !     And  is  there 
nothing,  dear  fir,  "indecorous"  in  com.paring  the  ftate 
of  manners  in  the  priiritive  Chriftian  church,  contain- 
ing Chrill  and  all  his  difciples,  to  the  loweil  dregs  of 
the  human  race  ?    to   \\\q  Bojchemm  or   %vild  HoUentots 
of  South  Africa  }    Mull:  not  fuch  a  comparifon  Arike  a 
tender  mind   with  horror,  and  be  confidered  as  a  moft 
fevere  reflection  on  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  and 
all  his  immediate  followers  }    Who  can  help  reflecfting 
on  the  prophetic  language  of  David,  when  perfonating 
Chrill,  rke  re  pre  aches  of  them  that  reproached  thee  are  fallen 
upon  ir.e.\     Is  the  religion  of  Jefus,  efpecially  its  inftitu- 
tions,  when  praaifed  as  they  were  in  '« Judea  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago,  deemed  indecorous"   by   people  of 


Two  Diicoi;rr*;s  at  M.iljen.  f  \*:A:n  hlx.  9. 


[     1^6     ] 

"  poll  (lied  manners  ?'*  Such  people  would  do  well  to 
remember,  that  the  fricnd/ljjp  of  the  world  is  enmity  luith 
God ;*  and  that  Chrift,  in  order  to  guard  his  people 
againft  this  temporizing  fpirit,  has  faid,  Whcfoever  Jhall 
be  ASHAMED  of  nie,  and  of  my  nvords,  of  him  Jfiall  the  Son 
of  Man  be  afljamed^  ivhen  he  flmll  come  in  his  onvn  gloryy 
and  in  his  Father' s,  and  of  the  holy  angels. \ 

But  what  aftoni(hes  us  moft  of  all,  is,  that  after  all 
this  outcry  about  decency  and  offending  againft  polified 
manners^  that  the  Doctor  fliould  inform  the  world,  that 
their  minifters  will  be  guilty  of  doing  the  fame  !  !  Yes, 
«  we  are  (faith  he)  far  from  calling  in  queflion  the 
validity  of  theirs,  (meaning  our  ;Tiode  of  baptifm)  •,  nay, 
in  condefcenfion  to  the  confciences  of  thofe  who  requefl 
it,  our  minifters  fcruple  not  to  baptize  by  immerfwn."  Is  it 
poflible,  Do6lor  ?  What !  will  your  minifters  and  their 
people  "  go  ftreaming  away  in  the  open  air  to  fome 
pond  or  river  ?"  What !  and  with  as  little  fenfe  of 
decency  as  the  Baptifts,  be  "  totally  immerfed  in  the 
water,"  and  like  them  "  come  drenched  and  fliivering  " 
out  of  it  ?  It  is  perfectly  aftoniftiing  !  But  why  do  they 
thus  trefpafs  upon  the  cuftoms  of  "  polifhed  manners  ?'* 
Why  ?  not  indeed  from  a  confcientious  regard  to  the 
command  or  example  of  Chrift,  but  "  in  condefceniion 
to  the  confciences  of  thofe  who  requeft  it."  So  great 
is  their  condefcenfion ,  that  it  feems  they  can  become  all 
things  to  all  men,  that  by  all  means  they  may  fave  fome — of 
their  people  from  going  over  to  the  Baptifts. 

Mr.  Worcefter  has  mentioned  one  fpecies  of  inde- 
cency, which  he  fuggefts  was  pra6tifed  anciently  in  im- 
merfton,  which  in  this  age  of  improvement  is  wholly 
done  away.  He  relates  the  ftory  from  Dr.  Wall,  and 
he  from  Voflius,  and  where  he  got  it  nobody  knows  ; 
but  it  is  thus  related  in  the  difcourfes  before  us  :  "  The 
ancient  Chriftians,"  fays  Dr.  Wall,  "  when  they  were 
baptized  by  immerfion,  ivere  all  baptized  naked,  whether 
they  were  men^  ivomen^  or  children.  Voffius  has  col- 
lected feveral  proofs  of  this,  which  I  fliall  omit,  becaufe 
it  is  a  clear  cafe."  (Note,  page  74>.)  If  Mr.  Worcefter 
is  acquainted  with  Dr.  Wall's  writings,  as  he  undonbt- 

*  James  iv.  4.  f  I.wke  \%.  a 6, 


I     157     J 

^dly  is,  he  muft  certainly  know  that  the  Do£tor  ha« 
ftreniioady  aflerted  that  imineriion  was  the  primitive 
ordinary  moJe  throughout  almoft  the  whole  Chriftian 
world,  for  thirteen  centuries,  and  in  many  countries 
much  longer.*  Can  any  man  in  his  fenfes  fuppofe  that 
Dr.  Wall  ferioufly  believed,  that  during  this  long  pe- 
riod of  thirteen  or  fifteen  centuries,  there  was  not  a 
fcrap  of  niodeliy  in  the  whole  Chriftian  world  ?  Would 
he  have  pleaded  for  the  reftoration  of  a  practice  that 
had  conlVantly  been  a  reproach  to  decency  ?  We  hard- 
ly think  it. 

But  we  iliould  like  to   know  who  this  VofliLis  was, 
"i^ho  furnidied  this  indecent  ftory,  that  we   may  know 
what  degree*  of  credit  is  due  to  it.      Was  it  Ifnac  Vcffnis^ 
who  came  over  from  Leyden  to  England  in  1670,  whom 
'king  Charles  made  caion  of  Windfor  .**    Of  this  perfo* 
an  Englifli  biographer  thus  remarks  ;  that  Charles  knew 
his  chara^Sler  well  enough  to   lay,  «'  there  was  nothing 
that  Voihus  refufid  to  believe^  e:<cepting  the  Bible  !"     He 
further  adds,  "  He  appears  indeed  by  his  publications — 
to  have  been   a   moit  credulous  mafi,   while  he  afforded 
many  circum (lances  to  bring  his  religious  faith  in  quef- 
tion."     If  there  be  no  other  proof  that  the  ancient 
Chriftians  baptized  naked,  than  what  can  be   gathered 
from  the  writings  of  fuch  a  man,  we  fhall  think  our- 
felves  at  liberty  to  doubt  it.     But,   true  or  falfe,  Mr. 
Worcefler  has  cleared   the  Baptifts   of  the  difgraceful 
ftory.     For   this  pra<5lice   is  faid  by  Dr.  Wall  to  have 
been  among  the  cmcietit  Chriftians.     «  But  the  Anabajv 
tifts,  or  Antipxdobaptifts,"  fays  our  author,  «  are  a  fedt 
of   modern    date.     They   had    their   origin    fome    time 
ifter  the  reformation  under  Luther  and  Calvin."  (P.  QG^ 
According  to  this,  the  Paedobaptilis  may  place  all  thef© 
naked   folks    to    their    own    account.       And    if    they 
confult  Dr.  MoOieim,  (vol.  i.  p.  227)  or  Broughton't 
Hilforical  Library,   (vol,  i.  p.  14)   they  may  find  an  ac- 
count of  others,  who,  it  is  faid,  went  naked,  not  indeed 
Uito  the  ivater,  but  into  their  public  aflemblies.f 

♦  Sec  Part  II.   Sed-  iv.  and  y. 

t  That  people  in  warns  climates  anciently  went  almoft  naked,  that  It, 
with  only  a  covering  louud  the  waift,  no  body  will  dif^iuta     The  fwuc 


[  1^«  ] 

By  dating  the  origin  of  the  Baptifts  «  feme  time  after 
the  reformation,"  our  opponents  exonerate  uj  from  all 
the  indecencies,  pious  frauds,  errors,  herefies,  and  pcB- 
fecutions, which  difgracedChriftianity  before  that  period. 

We  muft  here  beg  the  reader's  indulgence  while  we 
digrefs  a  few  moments  from  our  fubjecfb,  with  a  view  to 
repel  an  ungenerous  inlinuation  refpedting  our  origin. 
The  riot  at  Munfter,  in  which  fome  who  oppofed  and 
denied  infant  baptifm  were  concerned  wit'i  others  who 
held  it,  is  generally  fixed  upon  as  the  mofi:  diihonoura- 
ble  part  of  our  hiftory.  We  regret  that  our  limits  will 
not  allow  us  to  vindicate  ourfelves  more  fully  from  the 
unhandfome  things  which  have  been  fo  often  fuggefted, 
from  that  tranfa^tion,  with  a  view  to  injure  our  charac- 
ter as  a  religious  denomination.  But  we  can  here  only 
fay,  that  we  verily  believe,  that  to  take  the  account  o^ 
the  German  Anabaptifts,  as  given  by  their  enemies, 
nothing  will  be  found  either  more  wicked  or  difgrace- 
ful  in  this  fe(ft,  than  may  be  found  in  the  origin  of  al- 
moft  any  other  ancient  fe^,  taking  their  hiftory  from 
the  fame  fource. 

For  inftance  *,  the  Independents  in  England,  from 
whom  the  prefent  refpe<S\able  Congregational  Churches 
in  this  country  defcended.  If  you  take  their  hiftory 
from  Clarendon i  Echard)  Parker y  or  even  from  Rapirty 
▼ou  will  find  the  obfervatibn  juftified.  The  latter, 
though  a  foreigner,  is  allowed  to  have  written  one  of 
the  beft  hiftories  of  England  extant.  This  illuftrious 
writer,  faith  Dr.  Molheim,  reprefents  the  "  Independents 
under  fuch  horrid  colours,  that,  were  his  portrait  juft, 
they  would  not  delerve  to  enjoy  the  light  of  the  fun,  or 
to  breathe  the  free  air  of  Britain  ;  much  lefs  to  be  treat- 
ed with  indulgence  and  efteem,  by  thofe  who  have  the 
caufe  of  virtue  at  heart."  However  unjuftly  they  might 
be  accufed,  "  the  moft  eminent  Englifti  writers,  (adds 
the  DoiSVor)  not  only  among  the  patrons  of  Epifcopacy, 
J)ut  among  thofe  very  Frefhyteriansy  with  whom  they 
are  now  united,  have  thrown  out  againft  them  the  bit- 
is  ftill  pra<5lifcd  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  torrid  zone.  That  they  went 
Juto  the  water  in  their  ufual  drefs  is  highly  probable  ;  but  that  any 
wcrf  baptJzui  vytJiout  a  covering  rouad  the  waiii,  wc  have  fcen  n» 
li<^tu«t  prcof. 


L     159     } 

tereft  accufations  and  the  fevereft  inve<SlIves,  that  the 
warmeil  imagination  could  invent.  They  have  not  on- 
ly been  reprelented  as  delirious,  mad,  fanatical,  illite- 
rate, factious,  and  ignorant  both  of  natural  and  revealed 
religion  ;  but  alfo  abandoned  to  all  kinds  of  wicheJnefs 
and  fedition,  and  as  the  only  authors  of  the  odious  par- 
ricide committed  on  the  perfon  of  Charles  I."*  We  do 
not  pretend  to  vouch  for  the  truth  of  thefe  things,  nor 
Cio  we  believe  them  generally  to  be  true  ;  but  only  men- 
tion them  fo  (hew  that  other  fe^ls  have  been  as  fevere- 
ly  cenfured  as  the  Anabaptifts.  If  we  compare  the  ac- 
counts given  by  the  enemies  of  the  two  fe<Sts,  this  will 
be  about  the  refult — ^The  fanatics  of  one,  in  their  wild 
zeal,  fet  up  a  king ;  and  the  fanatics  of  the  other  pulled 
tiown  theirs. 

But  even  admitting  all  that  has  been  faid  of  the  Ger- 
man Anabaptifts  to  be  true,  and  we  can  fee  no  more 
propriety  in  reproaching  the  prefent  Baptifts  with  it, 
than  there  would  be  in  reproaching  the  prefent  Paedo- 
baptifts  with  all  the  errors,  debaucheries,  and  enormous 
cruelties  committed  by  the  Pxdobaptifts  of  Rome.  The 
fa£t  is,  though  we  agree  efTentially  with  the  German 
Baptifts  in  the  article  of  baptilm,  yet  we  totally  difap- 
prove  of  their  diforderly,  feditious  fanaticifm.  So  we 
underftand  our  brethren,  that  while  they  agree  with  the 
chiurch  of  Rome  in  their  infant  baptifm,  they  difagree 
with  their  fentiments  and  practice  generally.  The  only 
inquiry  which  a  candid  mind  would  here  make  would 
be  this ;  Is  there  any  thing  in  immerfion  which  haj  a 
natural  tendency  to  fanaticifm  and  Icdition  ? 

Our  obje(St  in  this  fection  was  not  particularly  to  ex- 
hibit all  the  proofs  in  favour  of  immerfton  of  which  the 
lubjejSt  is  fufceptible,  (as  th-it,  we  conceive,  has  bcea 
fufficiently  done^Part  II  fedt.  iv.  and  v.)  but  more  efpe- 
cially  to  remove  fome  of  the  objections  which  have  been 
raifed  againit  the  praiftice  by  its  oppofers.  We  huve 
endeavoured  candidly  to  meet  the  moft  weighty  and 
popular  objc(nions,  and  the  public  will  judge  whether 
we  have  refuted  them  or  not.  A  few  additional  obfer- 
vations  (hall  clofe  the  fe6tion. 

•Et-cl  ^iia.  vol  V  p.  x8i,  1 81. 


C     160     ] 

"  T!ie  Greek  word  hoptixo^'  fays  Mr.  WorcefFer, 
^\  detirmines  nothing  in  refpect  to  the  particular  mode 
in  which  water  is  to  be  applied.''  (P.  69.)  This  is  cer- 
tainly an  unpleafiint  circumftancej  if  true,  that  a  word 
is  made  ufe  of  to  defcribe  a  particular  a(S^ion,  and  yet 
that  it  has  no  definite  meaning,  fo  that  we  can  poffibly 
dttermine  from  it  what  is  to  be  done:  "  Every  ptrfon," 
fays  Dr.Cfgood,  "  who  hatli  the  like  acquaintance  with 
them  (that  is,  with  the  original  languages  as  himfeli) 
well  knows,  that  the  Greek  word  for  baptifm  iignifies 
any  kind  of  wafhing,  by  fprinkling  or  affulion,  as  often, 
if  not  much  oftener,  than  by  dipping.'*  The  object  with 
both  thefe  writers  is  evidently  the  fame  :  it  :s  to  throve . 
the  word  into  a  ftate  of  complete  uncertainty,  and  in 
this  way  to  fecure  the  validity  of  fprinkling.  It  means, 
according  to  them,  any  kind  of  wafhing,  either  by  dip- 
ping, pouring  on  water,  or  fprinkling.  Nor  is  there 
any  direQicn  to  what  part  the  water  is  to  be  applied  ; 
w^hethcr  to  the  head,  the  hands,  or  the  feet.  We  know 
of  nothing  but  cuftom,  which,  has  determined  the  appli-- 
cation  of  it  to  the  forehead*. 

"We  wifh  here  to  flate  a  cafe,  and  {hould  be  much 
gratified  in  a  fair  anfwer.  Suppofing  a  family  of  the 
defcendants  of  Abraham  were  to  embrace  Chrillianity 
tinder  the  rainiftry  of  the  Paedobaptifts,  and  fliould  re- 
ceive their  doctrine  of  baptifm,  as  coming  in  the  room 
of  circumcifion  ;  and  fliould  hence  infifV,  that  in  order 
to  render  it  analogous  to  that  rite,  the  water  muft  be 
applied  to  the  fame  part  \  would  thefe  gentlemen,  in 
their  great  "  condefcenfion  to  the  confciences"  of  their 
Jewilli  convert?,  ^pply  w^ater  in  this  way  ?  Could  they 
.make  any  fair  obie£ti(.n,  and  ftill  fupport  their  baptifm 
on  the  ground  of  circumcifion  ?  We  fhonld  fuppofe  not* 
Jf  the  manner  of  applying  water  is  to  be  determined  by 
tlie  conrciencc,  or  rather  flmcies  of  the  candidates  for 
the  ordinance,  then  any  way,  and  to  any  part  whicli 
they  may  choofe,   mud  be    confidercd  as  valid  baptifm.. 

But  let  us  for  a  moment  inquire  if  the  word  baptizoy 
which  is  rendered  bapiizcy  has  not  a  primary  meanings 
fufiiciently  definite  to  dire<n:  our  pra^ice.  "  The  word," 
fays  a  very  fenfible  writer,  "  is  confefledly  Greek.  Na- 
tive Greeks  undcTftand  their  own  language  better  thaut 


[      IGl      ] 

foreigners  ;  and  they  have  always  underftood  the  word 
to  mean  dipping  ;  therefore  from  their  fir  ft  embracing 
Chriftianity  to  this  day,  they  have  always  baptized,  and 
do  yet  baptize  by  immerjion.''  *  We  appeal  to  our  learn- 
ed opponents  to  fay,  whether  the  Greek  church  in  all 
its  branches,  even  the  cold  regions  of  Ruflia  not  except- 
ed, has  not  to  the  prefent  time  pradtifed  ivimerfiou  ?  We 
hence  reafon  in  this  way  : — ^The  New  Teftament  was 
originally  written  in  Greek  \  that  native  Greeks  under- 
ftood  the  word  baptizo  as  we  do,  to  mean  immerfion, 
and  confequently  they  always  praiflifed  immerfion  : 
this  alone,  we  fliould  fuppofe,  would  be  allowed  to  be 
decifive  evidence  of  the  meaning  of  the  word. — ^llie 
beft  critics  of  all  the  Chriiiian  feels  have  agreed  with 
Leigh,f  "  that  the  native  and  proper  fignification  of  it 
(baptizo)  is  to  dip  into  water,  or  to  plunge  under  water.''^—^ 
When  the  a£tion  is  defcribed  in  the  New  Teftament, 
it  is  defcribed  by  their  going  down  i?ito  the  water,  aad 
coming  up  out  of\t  \  which  would  be  abfurd  upon  any 
other  principle  but  immerfion. — That  it  was  under- 
ftood  in  the  fame  fenfe  by  the  Chriftian  church  general- 
ly during  the  firfi:  centuries  ;  this  is  evident  from  every 
ecclefiaftical  writer  of  any  note  whofe  works  have  come 
to  our  knowledge.  Thel'e  things  confidered,  can  there 
A  doubt  remain  as  to  Its  proper  meaning  I 

As  we  have  quoted  largely  from  the  above  clafs  of 
writers  in  a  preceding  part  of  this  work,  we  Oiall  here 
only  add  two  or  three  quotations  from  Dr.  Moftieim;. 
In  defcribing  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  firft  cen- 
tury, he  fays,  "  The  facrament  of  haptifm  was  adminifi 
tered  in  this  century,  in  places  appointed  and  prepared 
for  that  purpofe  ;  and  was  performed  by  immerfwn  of  the 
luhole  body  in  the  baptifmal  font.":}:  In  this  author,  there  ■ 
is  not  a  word  to  be  found  in  the  hiftory  of  this  century, 
of  pouring  or  fprinkling,  as  *«  a  fcriptural  and  valid  mode 
of  baptifm."  But  wlivu  may  be  done  by  "  fair  implica- 
tion," we  pretend  not  to  fay. 

Let  us  now  follow  this  learned  hiftorfan  into  the  next 
century,  and  fee  how  the  ordinance  was  then  adminif- 
tered.     "  The  perfons>"  faith  he,  «to  be  baptized,  after 

o  2 
♦  Robinfon's  Hid.  Bapt  p.  5.  \  Crit,  Sacra. 

|Eccl,  Hift.  vol,  1.  p.  lit. 


E    1^^    ? 

they  had  repeated  the  creedy  confeiTed  and  renounced 
their  fins,  and  particularly  the  devil  in  his  pompous  al- 
lurements, ivcre  IMMERSED  under  luater^  and  received 
into  Chrift^s  kingdom,  by  a  folemn  invocation  of  Father, 
Son,"&c.   (Ibid.  p.  206.) 

Thus,  according  to  Dr.  Mollieim,  (and  it  muO:  not  be- 
forgotten  that  he  was  aPxdobaptift)  the  apoftolic  mode 
of  baptifm  was  preferved  through  this  century.  Had 
either  fprifih/i/jg  or  ajfufion  been  pracftifed  in  thefe  centu- 
ries, is  it  not  perfe(^ly  unaccountable  that  not  a  hint 
fhould  be  given  of  it  by  this  author  .?  What  could  in- 
duce him  to  keep  fuch  a  fullen  filence  about  it  ?  Had 
he  not  the  advantage  of  examining  the  writings  of  Ck- 
mensy  Hermes.^  JujViJi  Martyr^  Irenausy  and  all  the  other 
ancient  writers  mentioned  by  Mr.  Worcefter  }  He  un- 
doubtedly had,  far  he  has  quoted  from  many  if  not  all 
©f  them. 

If  the  fulleft  evidence  could  be  exhibited  of  the  ex- 
igence of  infant  baptifm,  in  the  third  and  fucceeding 
centuries,  and  that  it  were  then  practifed  by  pouring  or 
fprinkling,  it  would  afford  no  deciiive  evidence  that  .ei-. 
ther  were  pra£tifed  by  the  apoftles.  Any  one  who  Jias 
taken  the  pains  to  trace  the  progrefs  of  innovation,  will 
be  fully  convinced  of  this  :-  he  will  find  fuch  an  increafe 
of  rites  -^nd  ceremonies  from  century  to  century,  as  in  a. 
little  time  to  change  the  "viiible  afpc(St  of  almoft  the 
whole  Chrfftian  church.  But  notwithftanding  this  gen- 
eral departure  from  apofioUc  purity  both  in  dodlrine  and 
manners,  immcvjton  held  its  indifpatable  claim,  of  being 
the  divinely  appointed  mode  of  baptifm.  We  fay  modty. 
becaufe  fprinkling  in  fome  inftances  was  admitted,  in 
cafes  of  danger  of  death,  as  a  fubftitute.  And  we  verily 
believe,  that  "  after  all  the  laborious  and  oilentatious 
eriticifm"  upon  baptizoy  to  make  it  mean  pouring  or 
fprinkling  ;  and  upon  eny  apOy  and  m,*  there  could  not 
be  found  among  the  Psedobaptifts  themfelves,  one  per-- 
ibn  in  ten  who  had  ever  thought  on  the  fu bjecSV,  but 
would  freely  acknowledge  that  he  believed  Jefus  Chriffc 
was  irnmcrjed  by  John  in  Jordan.  Nor  do  we  think  our 
l^rethren  who  plead  for  the  valid»ity  of  fprinkling,  difbe- 

*  Vid.  Dr.  Crane's  Sermon*. 


L      JG3'    ] 

lieve  it  thernfelves.  If  this  be  indeed  :in  error,  v/e  cr^ir 
think  of  bur  one  complete  remci^y  for  it  ;  and  th.ir  is,  * 
to  alter  the  Bible  !  Whihl  the  prefent  tranil.u-ion  is  re- 
ceived, and  people  are  per.nirted  to  rtMd  and  uiiuk  for 
t'leiiirelves,  it  may  be  exp-.'cled  that  tii(.Te..\vill  be  a  geii- 
eral  conviction,  tiiat  Jefus  was  plunged  in  Jordan.  4nJr 
ail  attemprs  to  prove,  that  this  was  to  anfwer  to  the 
waihing  of  the  priefts  at  the  t.ibernacle  door,  in  order 
to  introduce  him  into  his  prieftly  office,  will  help  to 
ftrengthen  this  conviction  ;  for  it  will  be  fcen  that  tlie 
Pxdobaptifts  themfolves  feel  the  dilHculty,  and  try  t-a 
get  rid  of  it  in  this  way* 

We  have  no  where  in  the  courfe  of  thefe  animadver- 
fions  attempted  to  vindicate  Mr.  Merrill,  as  we  thinly 
him  able,  and  believe  him  determined,  to  do  it  himlelf  i* 
but  with  here  to  notice  a  criticifm  made  by  Mr.  Auiiiii 
on  John  xii.  10,  in  lii.s  Letters  riddreiled  to  the  above 
author.  (P.  39..)  "  Yon  mention,"  faith  Mr.  Auftin, 
«  /ouo,  as  fignifyir^g  the?  fanie  vv.ith  bdpt'tzo,  &c.  If  you 
will  (continues  he)  turn  to  Job.n  xiii.  10,  juft  adverted 
to,  a  place  which  yon  have  not  mentioned,  and  probably 
not  coniidered,  you  will  lind  evidence  direBI^  and  i':,ft- 
clhftvely  agahift  this  idea.  *  Jcfus  faith  unto  him,  He 
that  is  wafhed  [o  Idoumfuos)  needcth  not  fave  to  wafh 
his  feet,-  but  is  clean  every  whit."  On  this  Mr.  Auftin 
obferves — '*  Here  the  fubjecl  fpoken  of  is  not  the  feet, 
or  hands,  or  face  j  but  the  man,  he^  in  Greek,  o.  He  is 
w-aihed  when  his  feet  only  are  washed  ;  and  nipfajikai  is 
ufed,  to  exprefs  this  waliiing  of  the  feet." 

But  has  not  Mr.  Auftin  after  all  miffed  the  force  of 
onr  vSaviour's  obfervation  }  Did  not  Jefus  intend  to  ex- 
prefs two  di'dinCH:  acts,  one  a  general,  and  the  other  a 
partial  waihmg  ?  one  a  bathing  of  the  whole  body,  and 
the  other  a  waihing  of  the  feet,  and  therefore  made  ufe 
of  two  different  words  ?  In  the  firft,  Chrift  ufes  the  paii 

■*  Psedobaptifts,  uno  write  or  fpenk  of  Mr  MerriH,  affed  to  treat 
him  with  much  coutempt,  as  tlioiigh  he  were  a  man  of  inferior  learning 
ind  tdlents.  If  they  believe. ir,  is  it  not  aflonifhing  that  fo  many  pens 
iiiould  be  employed  ugainft  him,  and  thefe  wielded  too  by  men  of  the 
firft  literary  eminence?  If  their  reprefentations  be  true,  they  x.vould 
gain  but  little  honour  HiOLild  they  beat  him  ;  but  would  it  not  be  infi-- 
nitcly  difgractful  to  be  beaten  by  him,  after  thus  dcfpiftog  hiai  i 


r  164  ] 

tenfe  ;  He  that  is  (Icloumenos)  luajhed  tieedeth  not  fave 
(nipfafthai)  to  lunflj  his  feet  ^  but  is  cUan  ever\  lubit.  He 
that  ir  nvajheii^  if  this  referred  to  the  walhing  of  the 
feet,  needed  not  to  waih  at  all,  according  to  Mr.  Auftin, 
for  this  exprelFed  an  a(St  already  done. 

Left  the  lenfe  we  have  given  above  (hould  be  thought 
to  be  a  mere  "  imagination  of  the  Baptilb/"'^  we  fabjoin 
the  remarks  of  the  amiable  Dr.  Doddridge.  "  He  tliat 
is  ivaJJjed  already y  or  that  has  juft  been  bathings  needs 
only  to  wafli  his  feet,  which  may  indeed  be  eafiiy  foiled 
by  the  (horteft  walk,  and  when  that  is  done  he  is  en- 
tirely clean."f  Upon  the  abjve  he  has  the  following 
critical  note  : — "  He  that  h  s  been  bathing.  This  render- 
ing of  the  word  leloumeuos  is  confirmed  by  Eifner^  (Ob- 
fcrv.  vol.  i.  p.  337,  338)  and  gives  as  it  were  a  compen- 
dious paraphrafe  upon  it.  Clarius  has  well  obferved, 
that  as  the  apoduteriotiy  or  room  in  which  they  drefled 
themfelves  after  bathing,  was  different  from  that  in 
which  they  bathed,  the  feet  might  be  fo  foiled  in  walk- 
ing from  one  to  the  other,  as  to  make  it  necefTary  im- 
mediately to  wafh  them  again." 

If  Dr.  Doddridge  be  right,  it  afford^  a  high  proba- 
biUty  that  Mr.  Merrill  may  alfo  be  right.  If,  according 
to  the  above,  two  diftindl  afts  were  intended  by  Chrift, 
then  Mr.  Auftin  has  overlooked  the  real  meaning  of  the 
paiTage.  \ 

On  the  whole,  we  have  one  undeniable  advantage 
over  our  opponents  in  this  difpute  about  the  mode  of 
baptifm.  Ours  correfponds  with  the  primary  fenfe  of 
the  ori|^inal  word  to  baptize,  and  certainly  with  the 
praftice  of  the  primitive  Chriftians.  Theirs,  by  the 
confeffions  of  many  of  their  beft  writers,  is  a  departure 
from  both.  If  it  had  been  the  intention  of  the  great 
Head  of  the  Church,  that  this  rite  ftiould  have  been  per- 

*  Dr.  Ofgood,  p.  a  I.  f  Expof.  vol.  il  p.  4»6. 

\  Mr.  Auftin  appears  peculiarly  unfortunate  in  the  choice  of  the  word 
affujicn  to  rcprefent  the  mode  of  applying  -vrater  in  baptifm,  as  it  neither 
agrees  with  the  Bible,  nor  his  own  pradice.  No  one  will  deny  but  a 
man  may  be  as  thoroughly  wet  by  pouring  water  on  him,  as  by  dipping 
him  into  it ;  but  the  queftion  is,  has  Mr.  Auftin  produced  any  inftance 
where  tha  Greek  verb  ekeo,  (to  afFuf  or  pour)  has  been  rendered 
b  pt'ize :  if  not,  what  argumeit  is  ther«  in  his  attaching  it  to  ba^tifov 
ftxty  times  over  .' 


[  1^5   i 

formed  by  pcwiugvsri  lur.Ur^  wonlci  not  tho  (to  afHife,  te 
pour)  have  bet^n  i!red,ir!l'i:eaJ  o\  bnpth-,  (to  dip,  to  j>lungt?^ 
&c.)?  Or  it*  fpriiikling  hiid  been  intended,  ihcuid  v/e 
not  rometimcs  hwve  found  rantizo  (to  aiperje,  to  fpiinkie) 
ufed  to  exprefs  the  acl  of  baptizing,  inflead  of  a  word, 
which  in  its  primary  fenie  fignities  immcrfion  ? 

Figurative  expreiTions  are  coni^jntly  rcforted  to  by 
©ur  brethren  to  uipport  their  pradlice':  luch  as  fr>nnk' 
ling  many  iiatifis.j'pnnWhHjr  clean  ivater^  f^ouring  on  of  tha 
Spiriti  &c.  With  thele,  we  have  only  to  contraft  other 
fcriptures,  which  reprelem  the  fame  things  by  an  entire 
waftiing  or  plunging  :  iiudi  ;;s  t-.-e  following.  In  that 
tluy  tha-efiall  te  a  FOUNTAIN  opetied  to  the  houfe  tf  David ^ 
and  to  the  inhtwitanis  of  Jeriifalem.forfm  and  fir  unclean- 
nefs,'*  'Unto  H:in  that  hvid  us,  and  ivaped  us  fr.m  our 
fms  IN  /-//  o'lcn  bhod.-\  TheJ'j  arc  they  ivho  came  out  of  gr.at 
tribulation^  and  have  tvajhi'd  ihar  robes  and  made  them 
white  IN  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.t  Thefe  Ijitter  afford  juft 
as  much  evidence  of  immeriion,  as  the  former  do  of 
fprinkiin^.  Brit  as  neither  of  tbeni  have  any  thing  to 
do  with  the  fubject,  neither  of  them  aiford  any  direct 
proof  in  the  cafe. 

«*  Tliere  is  an  expreilion,"  f^iys  Dr.  Ofgood,  "  occur- 
ring once  or  twice  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  which 
feems  to  have  full  poffeilion  of  the  imaginatidn  of  otir 
Baptiii  brethren,  and  renders  them  pofitive  that  imn^er- 
fion-wasthe  primitive  mode  of  baptifm.  It  is  found 
Rom.vi.  4.  <  We  XiVQ  huried  with  him  in  (by)  bapiiiln 
into  death.'  Again  in  Col.  ii.  \2.  *  Buried  with  hun  \\x 
baptifm,'  &c." 

But  what  has  "  polTeired  the  ima.c^ination"  of  (o  many 
Pjedobaptifts,  to  give  the  fame  explanation,  and  to  agree 
with  us,  that  the  apoflk,  by  tlie  term  buried,  alluded  to 
the<  mode  of  baptifm  by'  immeriion  1^ 
:  A  writer  v/liO  refers  to  ^^ /mail  things,''  on  Ti  fmall  Jub^ 
p^^  contained  in  a  JmaU  bo^k^  may  aiiift  us  on  the 
prefent  occafion  ;  ■^sfrrtnli  things  oki^n  liiow  which  wrvjr 
the  wind  blows  |j      '<  \i  any  of  the  learned  fathers,"  favs: 

*  Zed..  xiVu  I,  f  Rev.  i  J.  t  Rev.  "u.  ;  I 

§   Vid,  Cave,  Loclce,  Burkitt,  Poole,  in  luc. 
jl   Vid.  Mi"  Andcrfon's  cftiniate  of  imiue.uon,  note  p.  i  r. 


C     166     ] 

this  author,  "  have  faid  things,  in  favour  of  baptizing  by 
imnierfion,  they  may  have  been  indebted  for  it  to  their 
reading  Greek  authors,  more  than  to  their  critical  atten- 
tion to  the  New  TcfVament."  (Note,  page  11.)  What 
jin  admirable  apology  for  men,  whofe  profefTed  object 
was,  to  write  critical  expofitions  on  the  facred  text  ! 
''Hence  (continues  this  author)  \we  learn  -why probably 
Calvin,  and  many  others,  made  conceflions  in  favour 
of  immeriion,  and  yet  baptized  by  affudon.  They  were 
i<sne/?***  As  cliiffic  fcholars  in  the  Greek  language 
they  made  their  conceflions,  but  as  believers,  taught  by 
the  words  which  the  Holy  Ghoft  teacheth,  they  bap- 
tized as  we  do."  (Page  23.) 

Will  Mr.  Anderfoii's  brethren  thank  him  for  this 
fingular  ftatement  ?  For  the  premifes  which  he  has 
placed  before  us  furnilh  us  with  the  following  conclu- 
iion,  viz.  That  thofe  who  will  not  concede  the  fame 
things  which  Calvin  and  many  others  did,  that  «  to 
baptize  is  to  Immerfe,"  are  either  unacquainted  with 
the  Grecian  tlajftcs^  or  elfe  that  they  are  not  honejl] 
But  how  does  Calvin*s  honefty  appear  ?  in  his  believing 
one  thing  and  pradtifing  another  ?  How  ?  Why,  in  this 
way  :  as  a  clajjic  fcholar,  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
Grecian  literature,  he  was  compelled  to  own,  that  "  the 
word  baptizo  ilgnihes  to  dip  ;  and  it  is  certain  (adds  he) 
that  the  manner  of  dipping  was  ufed  by  the  ancient 
church."*  «<  But  as  a  believer,  taught  by  the  words 
which  the  Holy  Ghoft  teacheth,"  he  could  conftrue 
baptizo  to  mean  pouring,  or  fprinkling,  or  any  kind  of 
wetting  !  But  where  and  how  does  the  Holy  Ghoft 
teach  that  new  born  babes  (hould  be  fprinkled  ?  Not 
in  the  fcriptures  ;  for  many  others,  whofe  honefty  can 
r»o  more  be  fcrupled  than  Calvin's,  have  confelTed,  that 
the  fcriptures  were  totally  "  filcnt  j"  nor  by  the  tefti- 
mony  of  thofe  who  were  cotemporary  with  the  apoftles, 
for  there  "  is  nothing  directly  on  the  fnbjedt,  either  for 
or  againft  infant  baptifm,  in  the  writings  of  the  firft 
century."  But  where  will  this  I'entiment  lead  us,  that 
the  *'  Holy  Ghoft  teacheth,"  that  words,  when  ufed  in 
the  facred  fcriptures,  have  a  meaning  totally  different 

*  luft  Chiift.  Rdlg.  1.  iv   c.  ij    §  (9 


t     167     3 

from  what  they  have  In  common  ufe  ?  Will  it  not  lead 
into  all  the  devious  paths  of  error  ?  Is  it  not  Origenifm 
revived  with  a  witnefs  ?  and  does  it  not  eftabliih  the 
fentiment  of  tliat  myitic  writer,  that  "the  f:riptures 
are  of  little  ufe  to  thofe  who  underftand  them  as  they 
were  written  ?" 

But  thefe  men,  who  made  conceflions   in  favour  of 
immerfion,  fays  Mr.  Anderfon,  "were  honeft."     Did 
he  mean  to  fuggeft,  that   men  are  lefs  honeft   at  the 
prefent  day  ?    we   Hiould   hardly   fuppofe   it  ;   and  yet 
there  is  fome  ground  for  luch  a  iiifpicion.     It  is  under- 
ftood,  that  many  plumply  deny  what  their  pious  and 
learned    anceftors    freely  acknowledged :    not  only   fo, 
but  we  find  the"r  works  interpolated.     In  the  firlV  edi- 
tion of  Poole's  expofition  on  John  iii.  2S.  fpeaking  of 
John's  baptizing  at   Enon  hecniife  ibere  luas  much  water 
there^  the  writer  thus  expounds :  "  It  is  from  this  appa- 
rent, that  both  Chrlft  and  John  baptized  by  dipping  the 
body  in  water,  elle  they  needed  not  have  fought  places 
where  had  been  great  plenty  of  water  :  yet  it  is  probabUy 
thev  did  not  conftantly  dip,  from  what  we  read  of  the 
apoftles'  baptizing  in  houfes.'*     Noticing  more  is  added 
upon  this  member  of  the  text.      Although  Dr.  Collins, 
the  writer  of  this  article,  has  long  fince  been  dead,  yet 
fome  facrilegious  hand  has  dared  to  alter  this  in  a  late 
edition,  printed   at  Edinburgh  1801,  in  the  following 
manner  :    "  It    is   from   this   apparent,  fay  forney"   &c. 
"  Others  fay  it  is  not  apparent,"  &c.  ;  and  feveral  argu- 
ments are  here  urged,  to  difprove  what  ftands  decidedly 
in  favour  of  immerlion  in  the  firft  edition.      This  artful 
interpolation  we  confider  as  a  real  impoiition  upon  the 
public  :  for  in  this  way  any  of  the  ancient  writers  may 
be  made  to  fay  things  which  they  never  faid,  and  deny 
things  which  they  freely  acknowledged.     If  fuch  frauds 
are  allowed  to  be  pracl:ifed,  all  confidence  in  the  tefti- 
mony  of  thofe  who  have  gone  before   us   will  be  de- 
ftroyed. 

The  6ppofers  of  immerfion  make  ufe  of  the  fame 
kind  of  arguments  to  difparage  this  praiSlice,  which  the 
enemies  of  revelation  employ  againft  Chriftianity  gen- 
erally ;  we  mean,  by  arguing  from  the  abufes  of  it. 
Oiie  would  think,  by  fome  of  their  reprefentations,  that 


r.   i'-38  ] 

©ur  bnptifiDal  occafions  were  a  icene  of  riot  and  confu- 
iion  ;  the  truth  is  exa<Sl]y  the  revcrfe  of  this ;  they  are 
lifiially  feafons  of  peculiar  folemnity.  We  have  fre- 
cjfjent  and  repeated  inftanccs  of  perfpns'  beinpr  ftruck 
under  conviction,  while  witnefling  the  due  adminiltra- 
tion  of  this  impreffive  inftitute.  But  were  the  ridicule 
and  oppofition  much  greater  than  what  we  have  at  any 
time  experienced,  we  Ihould  fuppofe  our  brethren  would 
be  the  laft  perlbns  in  the  world  to  complain.  From 
whom  docs  this  oppofition  and  ridicule  proceed  ?  Surely 
not  from  the  Baptift^  themfelves,  nor  from  any  who  are 

friendly  .to  them  ;  but  from we  will  not  fay 

whom,  though  they  are  often  well  known. 

It  mull;  be  peculiarly  grateful  to  the  feelings  of  a 
p'ous  Baptift,  when  reproached  for  following  the  exam- 
ple of  his  Lord  and  Mafter,  that  immeriion,  after  fuf» 
taining  every  oppofition  which  learned  ingenuity  can 
make,  ftill  maintains  its  indifputable  claim,  of  being 
apoilolic  baptifm.  .Nor  will  it  give  him  the  le'aft  unea- 
fineA,  that  his  Pjedobaptift  brethren  can  make  out  a 
bare  prGbabilityy  that  water  might  po[fibIy  have  been  ap- 
plied in  fome  extreme  cafes  otherways.  From  the  evi- 
dence which  the  facred  fcriptures,  ecclefiaflical  hiftory, 
and  the  teilimony  of  the  moft  pious  and  learned  of  the 
Psedobaptifts  exhibit,  that  immerfion  was  the  conftant 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  he  will  feel  a  fafety  in 
following  their  example ;  he  will  reft  confident,  that 
there  cannot  be  the  fame  degree  of  evidence  in  favour 
of  ^any  other  mode.  This,  Psedobaptifts  themfelves  ac- 
l^nowledge  to  be  valid  ;  all  others  are  doubtful. 
•  Though  conlidered  by  our  opponents  as  a  "  little 
modern  fe<^,"  *  if  we  have  the  truth  on  our  fide  we 
need  not  fear.  "They  have  ever  been  (faith  Mr.  Wor- 
ccfler)  but  a  very  fmall  proportion  of  the  Chriftian 
worl^.  I  do  not  mean  (faith  he)  that  they  have  been 
but  a  fmall  proportion  of  the  twmwally  Chriftian  worlds 
but.  a  very  fmall  proportion  of  the  true  and  faitlrfui  pro- 
fefhng  people  of  God."  This  is  to  us  another  of  the 
myfi:erious  unintelligible  flatements  made  by  this  author. 
k  would  feem  by  this,  that  the  Baptifts  have  fome  time 

•  Dr.  Ofgood,  page  4i»  aad  Mr,  Worceftcr,  page  6ft. 


C     169     ] 

»r   other  msde  a    large   proportion   of  the  profefiing 
Chriltian  world.     But  as  a  drawback  upon  this,  they 
had  a  much  larger  proportion  of  nominal  profefTors  than 
fell  to  the  ft.are  of  other   denominations.     If  it   be  a 
fa6l,  that  wc  have  a  greater  proportion  of  twrnitml  pro- 
feflbrs  than  Paedobaptifts,  we  are  extremely  puzzled  to 
'account  for  it.     If  we  baptized  infants,  and  iniifted  that 
they  were  all  r/,yr;/?/<'j-,  although  they  had  never  learned  % 
word  concerning  Jefus  Chrift,  nor  was  it   certain  that 
they  ever  would  :  or  if  V/e  admitted  members  into  our 
churches  wiihout  evidence  of  their  having  experienced 
a  moral  change,  and  in  many  inftances,  without  afking 
iliem  a  fmgle  queltion  concerning  their  religious  exer- 
cifes :  or  if  a  confiderable  proportion  of  our  minifters 
were  ordained  without  any  examination  refpeifling  their 
particular  ientiments  or  experimental  knowledge  of  the 
truth,  and  who  of  courfe  would  be  interefted  in  keeping 
their  hearers  prejudiced  againft  the  fanaticifm  of  expe- 
rimental religion  ;  then  we  might  realonably  conclude 
that  we  had   a  larger  proportion  of  nominal  profefTors 
than  thofe  churches   who  admit   only  fuch  as  give  a 
j;Uisfa(ftory  reajhn  of  the  h^jpe  that  is  in  them. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  we  neither  make  difciples,  admit 
ni-embers,  nor  ordain  miniilers,  in  this  way  \  yet,  after  all 
our  care  in  examining  them  according  to  the  beji  light  ive 
have,  we  are  very  liable  to  err.  Our  brethren,  it  would 
feem,  are  not  fo  much  expofed  ;  for,  if  they  have  not 
overrated  themfelves,  "  the  light  of  the  truth  has  been 
a  hundred,  perhaps  a  thousand  fold  greater,  in  the 
Psedobaptift  churches  than  in  the  Baptift."*  Aiirabili 
diEiu  !  What  an  amazing  difference  !  Who  does  net 
pity  the  poor  benighted  Baptifts  ?  Alfo  all  the  piety, 
learning,  and  talents,  belonging  to  the  Ghriftian  world, 
our  brethren  claim,  almoft  ^xclufively  for  themfelves.! 
For  all  this  vaft  fuperiorjty,  we  moft  rerpe<flfally  ten- 
der them  **  the  homage  of  our  high  coiifideration  j" 
but  beg  them  in  future,  not  to  overwi^lm  us  with  fuch 
arguments  as  thefe. 

Mr.  Anderfon,  in  his  2eal  to  make  Tifairjh^^  of  em- 
inent men  in  the  Paedobaptift  churches,  has   fomehow 

*  Mr.  Anderroti'g  I.ett.  p   14,      f  Vid.  Mr.  Worcdlcr**  P-'c.  p.  c?. 
P 


I     170     ] 

flipped  in  among  them  the  author  of  the  Pilgrim's 
Progress.*  Bunyan,  though  a  Baptift,  we  fuppofe  it 
-will  be  allowed  was  one  of  the  good  fort,  for  he  held 
to  open  communion.  This  being  the  cafe,  how  came 
the  Psedobaptifts  to  perfecute  and  imprifon  him  ?  "Was 
it  for  any  immoral  conduct  that  he  was  configned  to  a 
loathfome  jail  twelve  years  and  a  half  ?  The  reader, 
perhaps,  could  judge  better,  if  he  were  to  know  the 
crime  that  was  laid  to  his  charge.  The  bill  of  indift- 
ment  preferred  agalnft  him  runs  tlms  :  "  John  Butiyan 
— hath  devilipAy  ahflatned from  coming  to  churchy  to  hear 
divine  fervice  ;  and  is  a  common  upholder  oj  feveral  ««- 
lanvful  meetings  and  conventicles,  to  the  dijlurbance  and  dif- 
trahion  of  the  good  fubjeBs  cf  this  kingdowy  contrary  to  the 
laius  of  our  fovereign  lord  the  king,*  For  thus  daring 
to  preach  the  gofpel,  contrary  to  the  laws  of  a  tyran- 
iiical  hierarchy,  this  good  man  was  fent  to  prifon  for 
twelve  years  and  fix  months  ! 

It  has  often  been  urged,  as  an  argument  in  favour 
of  the  divinity  of  the  Chriftian  religion,  that  it  made 
its  way  at  fir  ft  againft  the  learnings  poiver  and  policy  of 
the  world,  by  the  inftromentality  of  a  few  illiterate 
fifhermen  !  Does  not  this  argument  caft  its  full  weight 
into  the  fcale,  in  favour  of  our  diftinguilhing  fen- 
timents,  if  the  obfervations  of  our  brethren  refpeifling 
us  be  juft  ?  Let  the  candid  mind  decide.  May  the 
Lord  preferve  us  from  becoming  vain  by  profperity. 
We  have  great  reafon  to  adore  our  Saviour  God,  that 
our  dety  is  made  fo  plain  in  his  blefled  word  ;  that  we 
have  fuch  abundant  proof  that  we  are  treading  in  thefoot- 
Jleps  of  the  flocks  and  are  followers  of  them  who  through 
faith  and  patience  are  gone  to  inherit  the  promifes. 

Notwithftanding  our  praOice  of  immeriion,  which 
«  is  deemed  indecorous  by  moft  people  accuftomed  to 
polilhed  manners,"  and  "  denial  of  the  external  rite  of 
baptifni  to  the  infant  feed  of  believers  j"  yet,  if  it  were 
not  for  our  "  antichriftian  pra61:ice  of  clofe  commu- 
nion," it  feems  that  our  brethren  could  receive  and  treat 
us  as  Chriftians.  We  therefore  add  a  few  obfervations 
on  free  communion  before  we  clofe. 

*  Lett.  p.  aj.  t  Notes  oa  Claude,  vol  ii.  p.  aiS. 


C     171     ] 

SECTION     VIII. 

The  Prhiciples  of  Open  Communion   examined — The  Subje£f 
concluded. 

Is  the  communion  for  which  our  brethren  plead,  lim- 
ited, or  unlimited  ?  If  limited,  we  wifli  to  be  iiiform- 
ed  what  are  its  boundaries.  If  unlimited,  then  it  muft, 
we  conceive,  embrace  all  who  bear  the  ChrilHan  name. 
*<  In  thefe  United  States  (faith  a  refpedtable  writer) 
there  are  probably  more  than  fix  millions  of  people 
wearing  the  Chrijlian  name,^**  Is  open  communion 
charitable  enough  to  embrace  all  thefe  ?  No,  furely  j 
the  thought  is  too  extravagant  to  be  ferloufly  entertain- 
ed. A  confiderable  proportion  of  thefe,  have  no  other 
connexion  with  Chriftianity,  than  only  as  it  is  the  re- 
ligion of  the  cpuntry  in  which  they  happened  to  be 
born.  However,  they  are  all  brought  forward,  and 
each  counts  one  againft  the  Baptifts.f 

But  to  fay  no  more  of  this.  If  we  open  our  doors 
for  free  communion,  muft  we  nor,  to  a^  confiftentlv, 
receive  all  whofe  right  of  member(hip  can  be  fup- 
ported  ?  If  fo,  muft  we  not  commune  with  all  the  bap- 
tized children  which  belong  to  Paedobaptift  congrega- 
tions ?  Our  brethren  place  the  right  of  their  infants 
on  the  fame  footing  with  their  own  •,  therefore,  if  tl>eir 
argument  be  good,  if  we  receive  them,  we  muft  re- 
ceive their  children  alfo.  Should  we  admit  the  be- 
lieving parents,  and  refufe  their  baptized  children, 
might  they  not  ftill  continue  the  dreadful  charge,  that 
we  "  deny  God's  everlafting  covenant  of  fuperabound- 
ing  grace,  the  grand  charter  cf  the  inheritance  and 
privileges"  of  their  infant  feed  ?  We  fee  nothing  to 
forbid.  But  it  may  be  faid,  this  is  more  than  they 
pradtife  themfelves  \  and  therefore,  it  would  not  be 
expected  of  the  Baptifts.  We  grant  that  they  do  not 
pra(5tlfe  it ;  and  on  that  account  we  think  them  ex- 
tremely inconfiftent.  In  contending  with  us,  they 
ftrenuoufly  infift  upon  the  right  of  their  infants  to 
memberlhip,  and  yet   themfelves  deny  them  the  moft 

-  .j^  ■ 
*  Dr.  0%ood,DUc.  p.  41.         f  Ibid 


C    ns    ] 

cfTential  privileges  which  every  member  has  a  right  t# 
•fnjoy  ! 

But  fhoiild  we  give  up  this  idea,  and  narrow  the 
field  of  free  communion,  fo  as  to  include  only  fuch 
as  are  a<^ual  members  of  Pasdobaptift  churches  ;  we 
Ihould  ftill  wifli  to  inquire,  whether  it  would  be  ex- 
pe61e4,  that  we  lliould  commune  wiHi  all  of  them, 
.whether  Calvinifts,  Arminians,  Semi-Aiians,  Socinians, 
or  Unitarians  ?  If  not,  where  are  we  to  fix  the  difcrim- 
inating  hne  ?  D©  the  ftri£t  Calviniftic  or  Hopkinfian 
churches  commune  with  thofe  whom  they  conlider  as 
y\rminlans,  or  Semi-Arians  ?  If  not,  do  they  not  prac- 
,  life  clofe  communion  as  well  as  the  Baptifts  ?  Do 
thofe  churches  which  require  of  every  perJon  in  order 
lo  mcmberfhip^  either  a  verbal  or  written  declaration 
ji>f  ihtfir  experience  of  a  work  of  grace  upon  their 
hearB,  hold  communion  with  thofe  churches  which 
require  no  fuch  experience,  and  which  believe  nothing 
in  iiich  a  work  ?  If  they  do  not,  are  they  not  incon- 
iiftent  to  blame  us  for  our  particular  communion  ?  If 
they  do,  are  they  not  ftill  more  inconliftent  ? 

With  a  view  to  relieve  thefe  difficulties,  fome  have 
ilated  the  pVan  oi  free  communion  in  this  way  : — ^That 
we  fhould  hold  com.munion  with  all  fuch,  and  with  fuch 
only,  as  we  confcientioufly  believe  to  be  real  Chriftians  5 
God's  own  dear  children  by  the  Spirit  of  adoption  and 
a  living  faith.  This  is  indeed  by  far  the  moft-  con- 
liftent  plan  ;  but  even  this  is  attended  with  fome  fe- 
lious  difficulties.  It  is  believed  that  in  all  Chriftian 
communities  there  may  be  found  fome  of  the  above 
defcription.  There  ivere  even  in  Sardis  a  few  namts 
ivhich  had  net  defiled  their  garments^  though  living  in  a 
church  which  had  moft  awfully  apoftatized  from  the 
truth.  On  this  principle  we  might  freely  commune 
with  one  member,  and  reje<ft  another  at  the  fame  time, 
whofe  ftanding  was  equally  good  in  the  church  to 
which  they  belonged.  But  what  heart-burning  and 
confufion  this  would  produce  ;  and  yet  it  might  be  un- 
avoidable in  many  cafes. 

The  fa6t  is,  we  conceive,  that  there  is  but  one  con- 
iiftent  method,  by  which  oceafional  communion  can  be 
pra^tifed  between  the  members  of  fifter  churches.   This 


[     173    ] 

15  not  upon  the  principle  of  individual,  but  of  church 
fellowjlnp.  If  we  could  receive  one  member  of  a  church, 
by  the  fame  rule  we  could  receive  every  member  of 
the  fame  church.  We  do  not  know  the  precife  order 
in  which  our  Paedobaptift  brethren  proceed  ;  but  think 
it  the  general  practice  in  our  churches,  that  when  a 
brother,  who  is  a  ftranger,  requefts  occafional  com- 
munion, if  by  a  certificate  (or  otherwife)  he  can  fatisfy 
us,  that  he  is  a  member  in  regular  ftanding,  in  any 
church  of  the  hm^  faith  and  order  with  ourfelves,  he  is 
readily  admitted.  The  only  evidence  which  we  have 
of  the  man  in  this  cafe  is,  from  the  character  of  the 
church  of  which  he  is  a  member.  We  imagine  the 
practice  of  our  brethren  is  not  very  diflimilar. 

There  are  fome  Psedobaptifl:  churches  which  appear 
to  be  built  of  lively  Jlonesy  and  where  the  truths  of  the 
gofpel  in  general  are  preached,  and  a  good  degree  of 
difcipline  maintained.  With  thefe  we  have  no  material 
difficulty,  excepting  in  the  article  of  baptifm.  We 
could  moft  cheerfully  unite  with  them  in  every  a^l  of 
Chriftian  duty,  which  would  not  in  our  view  contravene 
fome  other  part  of  the  revealed  will  of  Chrift.  In  the 
article  of  communion,  we  feel  bound  to  treat  them  juft 
as  we  do  our  own  members,  after  they  are  received  in- 
to our  fellowfhip,  but  not  baptized.  Should  we  treat 
them  as  baptized  perfons,  would  they  not  with  great 
propriety  charge  us  with  our  inconfiftency  ? 

There  are  other  churches,  with  which  we  freely  ac- 
knowledge we  could  not  commune,  if  we  had  no  ob- 
je(5tions  to  their  baptifm.  It  is  not  becaufe  we  do  not 
think  them  refpe£lable  members  of  fociety,  but  becaufe 
we  have  no  evidence  that  they  are  real  Chriftians.  We 
have  no  doubt  but  in  thefe  communities,  there  may  be 
fome  fincer«  believers  ;  but  where  a  change  of  heart  is 
not  coniidered  as  a  neceflary  qualification  for  member- 
ihip,  there  is  always  a  high  probability,  that  a  large 
proportion  of  the  members  are  unacquainted  with  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jefus.  On  the  whole,  we  fee  no  way 
that  looks  more  confident  than  our  prefent  pradtice. 
From  all  the  evidence  which  has  been  fet  before  us, 
we  cannot  brin^  ourfelves  to  believe  that  any  thing  is 
p  2 


I    174    3 

baptifm  (Lort  of  imTnerfion.  Nor  can  we  fee  our  wzj 
clear  to  invite  any  to  the  communion  table  until  thef 
have  been  baptized. 

But  why  is  it  thought  fo  important,  that  different 
denominations  fhould  be  agreed  in  the  article  of  table- 
communion,  more  than  in  other  things  ?  Is  it  any  more 
eflential  to  falvation,  that  we  commune  together  at  the 
Lord's  table,  than  that  we  fhould  be  rightly  baptized  ? 
For  ourfelves,  we  believe  neither  of  them  eflential  to» 
falvation.  We  are  hence  unable  to  difcern,  why  our 
refufing  to  admit  the  Psedobaptifts  to  communicate 
with  us,  fhould  injure  their  churches,  any  more  thanr 
their  not  admitting  us  fhould  injure  our's. 

Our  brethren  charge  us  with  laying  an  undue  ftrefs 
ttpon  baptifm  ;  at  ieaft  upon  a  particular  mode  of  it» 
But  their  arguments  have  been  infufficient  to  produce 
conviction.  On  the  other  hand,  we  think  they  lay  an 
undue  ftrefs  on  our  communicating  together  at  theLord's 
table.  Ritual  duties,  they  have  conftantly  iniifted, 
were  to  be  clafFed  among  the  non-ejfenttals  of  religion. 
How  then  fhali  we  reconcile  the  condu^  of  thofe  min- 
ifters  and  churches,  who  profefs  te^  hold  rfie  dodlrine 
of  fovereign  difcriminating  grace,  and  yet  unite  with 
others,  who  hold  every  grade  of  do£b-ine,  down  to  5^- 
gf^ianifm^  merely  becaufe  they  are  agreed  in  the  article 
of  infant  baptifm  I  At  the  fame  time,  they  rejedt  all 
kind  of  connexion  with  their  Baptift  brethren,  who 
believe  and  preach  the  fame  important  truths  which 
they  profefs  to  believe.  Nay,  do  they  not  in  fome 
inftances,  warn  their  people  to  fhun  them  as  they 
would  the  peftilence  ? 

Our  pulpits  have  been  generally  open  to  all  evangelic 
minifters,  whether  they  have  been  buried  in  bapttfrrty  or 
only  fprinkled^  and  we  rather  think  they  will  ftill  re- 
main {o.  Some  of  our  brethren,  in  return,  invite  us 
into  their's  •,  while  others  very  confcientioufly  refufe, 
afligning  as  a  reafon,  their  fears,  that  it  would  have  a 
tendency  to  make  a  divifion  among  their  people.  Did 
we  differ  in  points  of  doctrine,  the  objection  would  have 
weight,  but  now  it  is  of  little  force.  We  do  not  be- 
lieve that  an  inftance  can  be  named,  in  which  any  kare 


L     ^75     ] 

preached  upon  their  diftinguifhing  fentiments,  when 
in  each  others'  pulpits.  Where  then  is  the  mighty 
danger  ?  No  where  but  in  imagination.  We  have 
never  apprehended  any  danger,  from  their  pi-eaching 
the  truth  to  our  people. 

Nor  are  we  confcious  of  feeling,  or  difplaying,  that 
rage  for  profelyting,  which  our  opponents  charge  us 
with.  "  Each  individual,  (fiiys  Dr.  Olgood)  whom  they 
can  perfuade  to  renounce  his  former  baptifm,  by  being 
thus  baptized  over  again,  they  confider  as  being  recov- 
ered from  a  ftate  of  heathenifm."  (P.  la.)  We  think 
the  Do£lor  would  have  fpoken  more  correctly,  if  he  had 
faid,  "  They  baptize  all  fuch  as  we  cannot  perfuade  to  keep 
out  of  the  water."  Whenever  a  perfon  renounces  Paedo- 
baptifm,  and  comes  over  to  the  Baptifts,  it  is  immediately 
faid,  "  Somebody  has  been  perfuading  him."  So  far  is 
this  from  being  true  generally,  that  we  have  reafon  to  fear 
that  the  dread  of  being  accufed  of  profelyting,  has,  in^ 
too  many  mftances,  kept  us  from  fully  declaring  this  part 
of  the  counfel  of  God,  We  appeal  t©  Paedobaptift  min- 
ifters  to  fay,  whether  they  have  not,  (many  of  them  at 
leaft)  had  repeatedly  to  ufe  all  the  arts  of  perfuafton  to 
keep  their  people  from  being  Baptifts  ?  If  there  be 
nothing  in  the  Bible  which  looks  with  a  favourable  af- 
ped  upon  the  Baptifl:  fentiment,  we  aik,  how  it  happens 
that  fo  many  Pjedobaptift  minifters  have  confefTed,  that 
at  feme  former  period  of  their  lives,  (though  through 
mercy  they  are  now  well  eftablifbed)  they  had  ftrong 
doubts  refpe<St:ing  their  infant  baptifm  I  What  but  the 
bible  perfuaded  Mr.  Dunfter,  the  firfl:  Prefident  of  Har- 
yard  Univerfity,  to  embrace  the  Baptift  fentiments  I 
Surely  he  could  not  have  h^Qu  perfuaded  by  the  Baptifts  y 
for  at  this  time  they  were  fcarcely  allowed  to  breathe 
the  air  of  Maflachufetts.  It  is  faid,  "  he  thought  him- 
felf  under  obligation,  to  bear  his  teftimony  in  fome  fer- 
mons,  againft  the  adminiftration  of  baptifm  to  any  in- 
fants whatfoever."*  What  his  temerity  coft  him,  the 
author  of  the  Hiftory  of  Malfachufetts  will  inform  us. 
?' peaking  of  the  rife  of  Antipredobaptifm  in  the  prov- 
iiice>  he  fays,  «  Mr.  Dunfter,  the  Prefident  of  the  Col- 

*Mitcbcr»  Life,  p.  67,  in  Backiu. 


[      1-6     ] 

lege,  made  profellion  of  it,  and  was  forced  to  quit  his 
preddentfliip."  To  which  he  adds,  "  Mr.  Chauncy,  his 
fucceiTor,  held  immer/ion  necejjary^  but  was  content  that 
the  ordinance  Oiould  be  adminiftered  to  infants,  pro- 
vided it  was  done  in  that  way."  He  further  remarks, 
that  "  in  Mr.  Hooker's  time,  foon  after  the  year  1 640, 
it  appears  by  his  letters,  that  many  were  inclined  that  ivay^ 
and  he  eyprefPes  his  apprehenfions,  that  the  number 
■would  increafe.*'*  Whether  his  apprehenfions  were 
excited  by  a  prophetic. fpirit,  we  pretend  not  to  fay  ; 
but  they  appear  to  have  been  well  founded.  We  wifh, 
in  future,  whener^T  the  fons  of  Harvard  are  difpofed 
to  treat  the  advocates  of  immerfion  as  being  deftitute 
of  literary  patronage,  they  may  remember,  that  their 
two  firft  Prelidents  underftood  baptifm,  as  we  do,  to 
mean  immersion. 

The  preceding  remarks  contain  fome  of  our  difficul- 
ties refpe^ting  the  plan  of  free  communion.  To  us,  the 
ftanding  of  many  churches  at  the  prefent  day,  appears 
to  be  fimilar  to  thofe  of  Afia,  to  which  John  was  direct- 
ed to  write.  Although  they  were  not  difowned  of 
God,  yet  the  moft  of  them  were  reproved  for  having 
departed  from  their  original  purity. 

There  are  many  individuals  in  the  different  commu- 
nities with  whom  we  could  moft  cheerfully  communi- 
cate at  the  Lord's  table,  did  we  believe  them  to  be  bap- 
tized. But  their  argun^ents  in  favour  of  their  practice 
do  not  fatisfy  us,  and  we  cannot  fee  how  they  can  fatisfy 
them.  To  acknowledge  that  the  fcriptures  are  our  "  on^ 
ly  rule  of  faith  and  praBice"  and  then  proceed  to  argue 
from  their  flencef  looks  to  us  as  inconfiftent,  as  to  admit 
the  teftimony  of  the  guard,  who  reported  that  the  dif- 
ciples  of  Jefus  ftole  him  away  while  they  flept. 

When  the  mode  of  our  obedience  to  a  pofitive  infti- 
tute,  (inftead  of  better  ground)  reforts  to  this,  that 
"  there  is  abfolutely  no  text  or  fentence  in  the  Bible 
forbidding  it  :"f  or,  that  "  there  is  nothing  in  the 
fcriptures  againft  it  :"-)-  it  eftablilhes  to  us  one  point, 
and  one  only,  that  is,  that  the  caufe  which  requires  it 

*  Hutch,  Hlft.  Maff,  p.  iig. 
f  Dr.  Ofgood,  p.  49,        Mr.  Worcefter,  p.  69. 


E     177     ] 

labours  e?(ceediogly.     The  reader  will  contraft  the  fol- 
lowing obfervations  with  the  above. 

"  Rehgion,  (faid  the  excellent  Claude)  in  all  its  parts, 
ought  to  proceed  from  God  :  for  as  he  has  not  left  it 
to  the  choice  of  man  to  have  or  not  have  a  religion  ; 
fo  neither  has  he  left  it  to  hisfavcy  to  invent  fuch  a  wor- 
ftiip  as  he  choofes."*  An  old  Engliih  divine  favs, 
"  We  muR-  have  God*s  warrant  for  God's  worfhip.  St. 
Paul  proves,  that  the  tribe  of  Judah  had  nothing  to  do 
with  Aaron's  pri  eft  hood,  from  xhf^  filence  oilSloi'Q^  \  of 
iL'hich  tribe  Mjf-'s  [pake  tiothin?  conceniing  priejlhood.'^ 
He  reafons  as  follows  :  "  God  employed  Mofes  to  re- 
veal his  will  to  the  Jews.  Mofes  fpake  nothing  of  Ju- 
dah's  priefthood.  Therefore  God  would  not  have 
that  tribe  officiate  in  the  prieft's  oSice.  What  God 
would  have  his  cl^urch  practife,  fince  the  abolition  of 
Judaifn,  he  has  revealed  by  ChriO:  and  his  apoftles. 
The  apoft'os  have  rcg'tfu-red  ihefe  nppcrfjtnienis  in  the  I  crip- 
tures"-f  It  hence  appearSj  that  St.  Paul  confidered  the 
ftlcnce  of  the  fcriptures,  in  a  light  exactly  oppolite  to 
what  our  brethren  do.  He  argued  from  it,  thiit  what 
was  not  written  was  implicitly  forbidden.  They  argue, 
that  what  is  not  forbidden,  TTiay  lawfully  be  pradVifed. 

We  oppcfe  infant  baptifm  becaufe  we  do  not  believe 
It  to  be  divine.  If  it  be  an  apoftolic  tradition,  it  is  an 
unwritten  one.  We  baptize  believers,  becaufe  we  have 
politive  f-^ripture  proof  that  they  were  baptized  in  the 
days  of  Chrift  and  the  apoftles.  We  pradUfe  immer- 
fion,  becaufe  to  us  it  appears  exceedingly  plain  from 
the  fcriptln-es  that  John  the  Baptift,  who  was  fent 
from  God  to  introduce  tills  new  diipenfation,  baptized 
IN  Jordan  ;  and  in  Enon  becaufe  there  was  much  ivater. 
I'he  nuich  ivater  is  mentioned,  as  neceiTary  to  his  bap- 
tizing, and  to  nothing  elfe.  We  alfo  believe  that  Jefus 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  was  plunged  in  Jordan  We  fur- 
ther believe  that  this  was  the  on4y  way  in  which  the 
apoftles  received  and  adminiftered  the  ordinance. 

Jefus  firft  made  djciplcs,  and  then  baptized  them. 
The  commiffion  which  he  gave  to  teach  and  baptize, 
eorrefponds  with  his   own  practice.     **  The  order  runs 

'^  Difc,  or.  a  Ser.  vol.  i.  p.  li^'. 
f  Gouge  on  the  viith.  of  Hebrews, 


[     !7»     ] 

thus,  Teach  all  nations  baptizing  them.  The  thing  fpeaks 
for  itfelf ;  the  ftyle  is  popular  ;  the  fenfe  plain  :  it  muft 
mean  either — baptize  whole  nations,  or  fuch  of  ail  na- 
tions as  receive  your  inftru(5lions,  and  deiire  to  be  bap- 
tized. The  firft  is  too  grofs  to  be  admitted,  becaufe 
it  cannot  be  effected  without  force  ;  and  the  groffnefs 
of  the  one  inftantly  turns  the  mind  to  the  other,  the 
plain  and  true  fenfe.  In  the  principles  of  the  kingdom 
of  Chrift  there  is  UQiiher  fraud  nor  force  /  nor  Is  it  fuit- 
able  to  the  dignity  of  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  to  take 
one  man  by  conviction^  and  his  ten  children  h^  furprife^^ 
Bifhop  Beveridge,  with  many  others,  have  tried  to 
make  out,  that  the  Greek  word  {matheietfate)  to  teach, 
or  make  difciples,  would  admit  of  making  them  without 
teaching.  «  But  I  believe  (faid  a  very  correal  writer) 
it  would  puzzle  a  whole  conclave  of  Jefuits,  to  make  a 
difciple  of  Chrift,  or  a  Chri/lian,  without  teaching.'*^  Col- 
lecfting  cmr  ideas  of  a  difciple  from  the  New  Teftament, 
and  we  are  at  once  led  to  a  believer  in  the  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift.  Tl^fe  difciples  ail  delire  the  ftncere  milk  of  the 
IVORD ;  but  thofe  "little  difciples"  deiire  no  higher 
nouriihment  than  what  a  good  healthy  nurfe  can  afford 
them.  But  it  is  faid,  "  they  are  entered  into  Chrift's 
fchool,  and  deitined  to  learn."f  Indeed  ! — But  do  men 
enter  their  children  as  fcholars  as  foon  as  they  are  born, 
becaufe  they  intend  to  fend  them  to  fchool,  fliould  they 
live  to  be  four  or  five  years  old  .''  A  man  may  be  fup- 
pofed  to  form  an  intention,  foon  after  the  birth  of  a  fon, 
to  bring  him  up  at  college  ;  but  would  he  not  be  thought 
a  madman,  Ihould  he  attempt  to  enter  him  as  foon  as  he 
was  born,  or  before  he  was  fitted,  or  was  even  capable 
of  receiving  the  loweft  degree  of  inftrutftion  }  We  will 
only  fay,  ive  have  not  fo  learned  Chrift. 

Notwithftanding  we  oppofe  with  fome  degree  of  zeal 
what  v/e  look  upon  to  be  error  in  our  brethren,  yet  we 
rejoice  whenever  we  hear  or  fee  the  work  of  God 
among  them.  Concerned  as  we  are,  that  the  ordi- 
nances (liould  be  kept  pure,  as  they  were  delivered  by 
the  apoftles,  it  is  ftill  a  minor  confideration.  Our  firfl 
and   great  concern  is,  that   men  be   made   Chriftians^ 

•  Robiiifon.  f  Dr.  Ofgood's  DiTc.  p.  7  a. 


C     i79     ] 

We  have  no  idea  that  baptifm  in  any  mode  will  make 
Chriftians,  either  of  infants  or  adults.* 

We  baptize  fuch  as  have  been  fprinkled  in  their 
infancy,  when  they  defire  it  of  us,  provided  they  can 
fatisfy  us  that  they  are  fit  fubje£ts ;  becaufe  we  think 
with  TertuUian,  *'  that  he  that  is  not  rightly  baptized, 
is  doubtlefs  not  baptized  at  alL"  Such  as  have  been 
baptized,  that  is,  immerfed,  upon  a  profeffion  of  faith, 
by  Psedobaptifts;  we  do  not  re-baptize  :  but  if  they  have 
only  been  fprinkled,  though  adults,  when  they  come 
over  to  us,  we  baptize  them.f  Infant  baptifm  to  us  is 
defe(flive,  both  in  the  fibjtB  and  modey  and  has  a  ten- 
dency to  defeat  the  delign  of  the  ordinance,  which  was 
intended  to  be  a  figniiicant  lign  of  faith  in  Chrift. 

If  baptizing  fuch  as  have  not  been  rightly  baptized 
be  anabaptifmy  then  there  were  liundreds  and  thoufands 
long  before  the  mndmen  of  Munfter  (as  their  enemies 
are  pleafed  to  call  them)  in  1522.  Befides  many  indi- 
viduals from  Tertullian  down  to  the  Reformation,  were 
there  not  large  fects,  fuch  as  the  Donatifts,  in  the  fourth, 
century,  the  Paulicians,  in  the  feventh,  eighth  and 
ninth,  the  Waldenfes  in  the  eleventh,  who  baptized 
fuch  as  came  over  to  them  from  other  {^^  ?  Dr. 
Mofheim  allows,  thnr  "  the  origin  of  the  fe(St  is  hid  in 

♦  The  quefllon  was  once  afked  one  of  the  Paulianifts  (an  ancient 
fed,)  "  Why  do  you  not  haptize  yiiur  fon,  to  expel  die  devil  out  of 
him  ?  Oh,  anfwered  he,  no  water  can  wafh  the  devil  out  of  the  child. 
Monfler!  faid  the  other,  you  deny  haptifm  and  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghoft."     Monflrous  abfurdity  ! 

f  Mr.  Worcefter  feems  to  be  much  difturbed  at  the  proceedings  of 
the  Baptifts  at  Sedgwick,  for  adminifiering  baptifm,  forming  a  church, 
&c.  "  Thus  (fays  he)  in  the  face  of  the  jn%rld,  was  the  great  body  of 
our  churches  and  miniftcrs  &c.  ddilerately  fet  at  nought.  This  has 
been  widely,  and  with  great  exultation,  fpread  abroad  by  the  Anti- 
padobaptifts."  And  would  not  the  Paedobaptifts  "  exult  "  a  little,  if  a 
Baptift  mteifter,  his  wife,  three  deacons,  and  eighty  others,  fhould  all 
come  over  to  them  at  once  .?  Has  not  the  defe<5lion  of  Mr.  Edwards 
from  our  fcntiments,  been  a  theme  of  as  much  "  exultation  "  among 
them  ?  Has  not  a  folitary  inftance  of  a  Mrs.  JackfoH,  in  the  State  of 
Vermont,  been  conveyed  to  Bofton,  and  attached  to  feveral  publications, 
and  vaft  pains  taken  to  fpread  it  ?  Not  only  fo,  but  has  not  an  inftance 
of  one,  who  by  the  "  overwhelming  attentions  of  the  Baptifts,"  had  like 
to  have  Leen  one,  but  mercifully  efcapcd,  been  widely  proclaimed  abroad  ? 
Vid.  the  lucubrations  of  a  petticoat  triefty  over  the  fignaturc  •£  Lydia, 
in  the  Maff,  Miff,  Mag. 


[     180     ] 

the  remoteft  depths  of  antiquity  j"  that  they  <' ftarted 
wp  all  of  a  fudden  in  feveral  countries,  at  the  fame  point 
of  time,  under  different  leaders,  at  the  vtry  period  when 
the  firft  conteft  of  the  reformers  with  the  Roman  pon- 
tiffs drew  the  attention  of  the  world,"  &c. 

But  having   far   exceeded  our   propofed   limits,   we 
halten  to  cloie  the  fubjeft  with  a  few  words  of  addrefs. 


To  the  Paedobaptifts. 

Belovjt.i,  Bkethken — When  you  caft  your  <^-es  upon  the  Baptlft 
churches,  you  behold  a  people  ffread  abroad,  who  have  rifcn  fr(,m  a 
ftandfui  to  a  great  multitude.  Like  the  primitive  church,  thry  have 
had  tc  encounter  all  the  prejudices  of  the  learned  and  of  the  ignorant. 
As  they  have  never  been  aided  by  civil  power,  their  progref?  mult  be 
attributed  to  fomc  other  caufe.  We  bcfccch  you  candidly  to  weigh  the 
evidence  exhibited  in  the  preceding  wovk,  and  conip  re  it  with  thit  by 
wjiich  you  fujrport  your  own  Icntimenfrs;  and  may  the  Lord  help  yon 
*o  know  and  do  his  will. 


To  the  Baptifts. 


BelOVFI)  BrethR  e  n  —  Unto  you  it  is  givf/t,  in  the  behalf  •/  Chriji,  ntt 
•nly  to  believe  on  him^  hut  alfo  to  ft'ffer  for  bis  fake.  From  the  days  of 
^our  perlecuttd  anccftor,  who  was  obliged  to  crofs  the  Patuckct,  to  en- 
joy among  favages  thofe  rights  of  confciencc,  which  had  been  denied 
him  by  Chriftians,  your  hiftory  exhibits  repeated  inftances  of  cruel 
moiiings,  and  of  the  fpoil'ng  of  your  goods,  and  lome  of  bonds  and  imprifcn- 
mtnt.  The  American  revolution  has  meliorated  your  condition.  Truth 
inuft  prevail.  Its  progrefs  will  naturahy  be  more  rapid,  when  not  im- 
peded by  religious  eftabliftiments.  and  penal  laws. 

We  befeech  you,  brethren,  ?i^  pilgrims  and fr  angers,  to  adorn  your  pfo- 
fcflion,  by  a  holy,  humble  walk.  The  progrels  of  your  principles,  and 
increafe  of  your  churches  (under  God)  depends  not  lefs  upon  the  un- 
blameablenefs  of  your  lives,  than  upon  the  purity  of  your  iencimerts. 
If  your  brethren  bate  you,  und  caji  you  out  far  bis  name's  fake,  requtte 
them  only  with  fcindnefs.  In  this  way  you  will  put  to  ftlence  the  i^no* 
ranct  of  foelifb  men.  The  prHcnt  period  i«  aufpicious;  O  for  wildom  to 
improve  it.  Sec  that  you  fall  not  out  by  ike  way.  Finally,  brethren, 
've  befeecb  you,  that  you  ivalk  'worthy  of  the  vocation  ivhet  e-with  you  arlt 
tailed  ;  luitb  all  Utulinefs  and  nieeknef^  ivith  l^ng'fvjff'erings  forbearing  one 
enotber  in  Uve  ;  endeavouring  to  keep  the  unity  of  t,. -it  Spirit  itt  the  bomd  of 
ftate. 


FINIS. 


•    ;P 


><?!. ' 


•i?- 


